Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humber College Comedy: Writing and Performance (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. (non-admin closure) — Yashtalk stalk 23:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Humber College Comedy: Writing and Performance
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not necessary to have an article on this. Questionable notability as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article was kept at Afd just two weeks ago. Albeit a NAC after a withdrawal. However the consensus there was not to delete, with some very detailed explanations as to why. The renomination here is very weak. The nominator offers no explanation as to why we should reopen this again -- or even that he has bothered to read the just-closed Afd. Although I was for merging last time, I say keep, in that sufficient notability was established just last month. I see no valid reason to reopen this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The first AFD was closed just two weeks ago, and did show evidence that sufficient sourcing exists to get this over WP:GNG. Of course, a renomination would be perfectly valid if the nominator could show substantial new evidence of unsuitability not considered in the first discussion, but they haven't done that here — it's hard for me to read the nomination statement as anything more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid deletion rationale in and of itself. You don't have to like it, but you do have to respect that a keep consensus was established just two weeks ago and give the article time to get spruced up. If two or three years from now the article still hasn't been improved and all of the sources in the original AFD discussion have become unretrievable deadlinks, then there would be a valid reason to revisit whether it was time to overturn the first AFD. But not just two weeks after the first AFD closes as a keep. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep -- no new evidence or arguments presented. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with nom/Bearcat. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:05, 13 March 2017 (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.