Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humber College Comedy: Writing and Performance (2nd nomination)
The first AFD was closed just two weeks ago, and ''did'' show evidence that sufficient sourcing exists to get this over . 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 , 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
— User:Bearcat, 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT (Wikipedia:Notability)