Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changement Intégrité pour notre Québec
Appearance
- 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. SoWhy 10:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Changement Intégrité pour notre Québec (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)
Non-notable political party lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 02:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the fact that it's non-notable is not a very good point because other small political parties have pages, like the Parti_nul or the Parti_équitable --Di123 (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Referencing improvement is certainly still needed here, but there are already enough reliable sources present to cover off the basic notability question. The notability test for a political party is not having actually won seats in a legislature, but is passed by any party — major or minor doesn't matter — that is registered with the appropriate electoral registrar and referenceable to something other than purely primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Scrapes by WP:NORG for now per sources in article, having only been around for one election cycle. Given their candidates' nonzero showings last election, it's a pretty safe bet that another few profiles this summer and fall will make them unambiguously notable. FourViolas (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2018 (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.