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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chouettes Coquettes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no evidence that this group meets the notability criteria. The last AfD in 2006 ended as no consensus. I can find no press coverage, and no books giving significant coverage (indeed, most of the books which mention it are merely reprints of Wikipedia articles). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you check French-language sources? I've just added two items on the group from 2011 and 2012, an interview and a feature story, respectively. Pretty local in scope but I'd say this group just meets WP:GNG, Keep.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't read French very well, I'm afraid - although I can use Google Translate if required! Good finds, but I'm not convinced that they meet the criteria for reliable/independent sourcing. I note that Entre Elles has no Wikipedia article, and that the Fugues (magazine) article is unreferenced - and have tagged it as such. I am not saying that they do not meet the requirements on Wikipedia for sourcing, but I'm not totally sure that they show the notability of the group. However, I await with interest to see what other people think! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The current state of Fugues' wiki article has no bearing on whether it is RS. It is a well established and longterm publication in Montreal, since 1984, and you can read a bit more about it here. Entre Elles I've not heard of, but I see it bills itself as Quebec's leading lesbian publication, and its distribution page shows distribution points across the city and beyond. It features bylined news and culture stories, and its ISSN entry is here, where you'll see that both Quebec and Canada's national libraries archive this publication. I don't think you've provided a persuasive rationale as to why we should not consider these two publications as reliable sources. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair points, and I have struck out the relevant parts of my last points, apologies! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.