Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action civique de Québec

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. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action civique de Québec[edit]

Only two lines of content that looks like a poor translation from english, and the info boxes are not even done properly JenLouise 07:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The site isn't just a poor translation, it's absolute nonsense. Plus, none of the links work and the table on the right isn't programmed correctly. --The Way 09:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep - I thought this might be salvageable as a stub if the info could be translated (poor English and bad formatting are not deletion criteria), but the domain name registration expired last month. The only English language Ghits I'm getting are to WP/mirrors, and without external verifiability it has to go. Maybe someone could use the non-English links to create a Fr:WP article, but not here.

Salvage job seems to have sorted this. Still not many Ghits (1610 is not "plenty" in my book, and no Google News hits even in Canada and French language-specific sites), but seems to meet notability requirements regardless. --DeLarge 10:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it was an incredibly poor article, but I have cleaned it up, and now it is a perfectly good stub. The official site works fine for me, and Quebec City's own website indicates that the party is the second largest party on the City Council, with 6 of the 37 seats ([1]). It is notable and verifiable.
A Google search turns up plenty of hits. I note that WP:V does not preclude the use of non-English sources; it simply prefers the use of English-language versions where available for the convenience of English-speaking readers (and Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that "foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability"). I strongly disagree with the notion that the lack of English-language sources (not surprising for a local political party in an overwhelmingly non-English speaking city) somehow renders the subject non-notable and non-verifiable, but that it would be okay for there to be an article on the French-language wikipedia. Skeezix1000 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub given Skeezix1000's excellent salvage job. They have contested elections and so are notable. Keresaspa 13:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable political party in a major Canadian city. Kirjtc2 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wonderful salvage job. Notable due to actually being elected. I would love to see this article expanded as I am sure there is more information about this party available. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the information that they hold 6 of the 37 council seats, and a pointer to their seldom-updated web site, I'm not sure that this tells us anything about the Action Civique de Québec. I'd support deletion of the article now, and recreation if anyone has time to do a proper article. The other parties on the City Council don't have articles yet, and I sure wouldn't recommend they get ones like this. As an office-holding political party I agree that the A.C.Q. are notable. It's just that the stub is so small it makes you feel you wasted your time looking it up and reading it. As a temporary measure, could a section be added to the Quebec City Council page that just has the URLs of the party web sites? EdJohnston 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News Archive shows that they have received plenty of coverage in the Canadian French media and shows potential for expansion. [2] As the party has successfully endorsed candidates for election, it is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real party with real office-holders, what more do you want? Sandstein 20:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've seen plenty of articles on other language Wiki's that are only stubs of lengthy English language articles. Turnaround's fair play, n'est ce pas? Atrian 00:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep valid stub per Skeezix and Atrian. Ground Zero | t 04:55, 11 October 2006 (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.