Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affiliation Quebec (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. This has been listed for 19 days with only 4 relevant comments outside of the nom. Of course it would have been great if there was a lot of discussion and a clearer consensus. But what is clear is that there isn't a pull to delete this article, and that it has been on AfD for a long time. I'm boldly closing instead of relisting. -Andrew c [talk] 15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Affiliation Quebec
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

procedural nomination Previously considered at AFD and Deleted; current content is substantially different from originally deleted content, but remains concerned with the same topic and was subjected to PROD nomination for deletion. PROD nominator states: "This entry was already deleted August 9, 2003 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affiliation Quebec. Subsequent registration as a political party is not confirmed in any secondary source (including the website of the Director General of Elections of Quebec." If someone can track down the 2003 AFD, that would be helpful to reference here. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 
 * That should say "August 9, 2007", not "2003"., i.e., last month. If you click on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affiliation Quebec you can see the discussion.Galteglise 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have searched and also cannot find any sources to show they have obtained the 100 signatures required to register as a political party. Without evidence they have registered I cannot see anything to revisit the previous decision. The press coverage of the launch seems too temporary to really establish notability. Davewild 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Since the 1st AfD (which was very contentious and should've resulted in a "no consensus"), there have been new secondary reliable sources writing about this entity. . --Oakshade 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Weak keep but only if someone can ind a source. DGG (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment is two months an acceptably long period between AfDs? I thought it was three months. In a case of recentism, shows it's been in the news recently. 132.205.44.5 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.