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 DELETE - Most keeps are based on possible future notability. We don't keep until it becomes notable, we create after it becomes notable. And this is (thus far?) a short lived, small sized, no major achievements organization. - Nabla 13:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliation Quebec[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Affiliation Quebec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article reads like an advertisement, and fails WP:ORG. They're not even registered. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Delete GreenJoe 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the launch was widely publicized, they've held a meeting that attracted a significant number of people. If no further action is taken by the party, I'd agree to delete, but at this point it looks legitimate. Deleting now would just mean having to recreate it later. The article reading like an advert is a rationale for editing it, not for deleting it. Ground Zero | t 15:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's been the subject of fairly extensive independent secondary sources. There is nothing in WP:ORG that requires a political group to be a registered party in order to be notable. Skeezix1000 15:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Until the Québec Election Commission rejects the application to register this Québécois party, we should allow the article to remain in existence. If the Election Officials do reject the application, then we should delete it. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Election Commission does not determine if a Wikipedia article should be deleted or not. If it is not registered as a party, then the question is whether or not the group is sufficiently notable absent registered status. There needs to be consensus on that question before any deletion occurs. Skeezix1000 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "It is still in the process of attempting to register as an official party" - since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, they should come back when they succeed in registering. Anyone can "attempt to register" anything, making that pretty much meaningless. >Radiant< 11:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why registration as a party is being treated as the threshold for notability here. Who cares if it is registered or not? WP:ORG does not state that party must be registered to be noteworthy. This is a group that has been the subject of what appears to be some fairly extensive secondary source coverage. We can disagree on whether or not that means the group is noteworthy or not, but this reliance on whether or not it is registered strikes me as focusing on the wrong issue. Skeezix1000 18:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The threshold is "having accomplished something", not "intending or hoping to accomplish something in the future". >Rad<fontcolor="#00EEFF">iant< 09:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without being flippant, what they have "accomplished" is garnering some public forums, national and local news coverage, and editorial items. Even "Le Devoir", a nationalist/sovereignist paper in Quebec, decided to cover Nutik's speech to the Westmount Rotary. (Said article cannot be sourced by non-subscribers at present, but it was previously circulated by Google News.)Toddsschneider 10:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Weighing in as a Montrealer, I have some familiarity with this "party." The total whacko (Nutik) is setting up his new "Equality Party" light as a vehicle for his own backyard ambition; he has thrice run unsuccessfully for the mayor of Westmount, garnering truly tiny amounts of votes. If he cannot even make a splash in a Westmount municipal election, running on de-merger, partition, and anglo issues, the chances of his establishing an Anglo-rights party a la Howard Galganov are virtually minuscule. Unfortunately, the emotion surrounding Quebec independence and anglophone/allophone rights & status is such that even such trivial efforts as this get some play-time. That should not, however, be conflated with notability. So, based on all that, this totally fails the standard laid out at WP:ORG. If, by some miracle, they get accreditation then the article can be restored. Meanwhile, I'll be at the local Sports Expert buying a new pair of skates to take with me to hell. Eusebeus 13:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot find in any of the referenced secondary sources an indication that there is more than one person involved in this group. He held a public meeting which got media coverage, but the people in attendance were passive listeners to his speech, not members of the group. The "founder" of this group described himself as "the only candidate". A single person who goes public with the idea of starting a political party fails WP:ORG since, by definition, a single person is not a group. If something eventually occurs to show that the group has multiple members (e.g., it gets registered, or announces more candidates) then the article could be reinstated, but Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball.Galteglise 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From my reading of WP:ORG I see nothing there that justifies deletion of this article. It is fairly and carefully written, and far from being an "advertisement". It speaks to a nascent party trying to address key issues in Quebec politics, in nowise a trivial effort. Since Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball it can't be certain that this effort will fail. Nicoleksmith 16:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — Nicoleksmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • They have to be notable to have an article. Your logic is flawed. The crystal ball theory goes to the assumption that they will fail, you have to prove that they are notable. GreenJoe 16:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There may be more than 100 "members", since many who attended the founding meeting signed the registration forms and/or paid their dues to join, but since they have not been 'recognized", I will reserve judgment until further notice. It may be dominated by a single public figure, but what else is new in politics? It may not be a registered party yet, but it is surely an "interest group", which *does* meet the definition of notability. At least it's not notorious like Raymond Villeneuve and his gang, and they haven't been "deleted" yet. Toddsschneider 11:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you back that up by citing a 3rd party neutral source? GreenJoe 15:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to belabor the point, but I think there is a clear distinction between (A) a group dominated by one person and (B) a single person who says he wants to form a group. The latter is the case here. I haven't found any secondary references describing any group activities (i.e., where anyone other than Allen Nutik claims to be, or acts as if, they are members of the group.) The member don't have to be "recognized" or registered, but they do have to exist. Absent proof of more than one existing member, this article should be deleted.Galteglise 19:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course there are more members than just Nutik. He didn't sign all the registration forms by himself. Not all their activities (formulating and posting policy for example) are done as an open meeting. A publicly inactive group is still a group. Toddsschneider 21:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, these assertions of signed registration forms and private meetings are either original research or speculation. There is no secondary source evidence of group activity, so it does not as yet warrant a Wikipedia article. If you can show me secondary sources, I will change my mind. Galteglise 23:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • News articles described the *founding* meeting, for example. At such a meeting, in Quebec, forms are completed by voters and registered donations are taken. That's not speculation, just reality.Toddsschneider 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But they don't say how many people were at the meeting. For all we know it is just the founder and his family like the Westboro Baptist Church. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. GreenJoe 15:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The CBC does: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/05/22/qc-affiliationquebec.html?ref=rss Quote: "Nutik met with about 100 people on the weekend at his inaugural meeting ..." Toddsschneider 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you. Is that cited in the article? GreenJoe 15:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It seems quite clear that it is cited since after the link it says, "Quote:..." It's in the last paragraph, by the way, so you don't have to read the whole thing if you're in a hurry.Nicoleksmith 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — Nicoleksmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
                • I asked if it was cited in the article. I did visit the link. GreenJoe 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It was until hacked. I didn't bother updating it since it's just a game of counting heads. What matters at this point is whether they get enough verified signatures to officially register as a party. Then we'll see if that registration gets hacked (they already suffered electoral fraud by an attempt to "squat" the party name).Toddsschneider 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This says there weren't 100 people at that meeting. GreenJoe 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • actually, it says that the 100 signatures were not achieved at the meeting. There is no record in the West End Chronicle article you have linked of how many people were at the meeting. The reports of the exact number vary from article to article (as is always the case in newspaper reporting), but the range shows that it is not "just the founder and his family". If they have already achieved the 100 signatures needed, or will achieve it by the six month guideline, and don't fall prey to worse tactics against them like this namesquatting, they may officially register.Nicoleksmith 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — Nicoleksmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
          • But that's what we're talking about. You have to prove they have the 100 signatures. 100 people at a meeting doesn't mean anything if they can't get the support to register. Lack of registration = Non-notable. The article can always be re-created if they actually register. GreenJoe 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure that it matters whether 60 or 100 people showed up at the first meeting. I have been to plenty of "inaugural meetings" organized by a single person, attended by the person's friends, family, local reporters and a few curious people. The person announces that he is starting a group; the local reporter writes about it, but then the group either never meets again or has so few people participate afterwards that it peters out without ever doing anything. Those types of "groups" shouldn't have wikipedia articles, since they aren't really groups, just a single guy with an idea to start a group. The secondary sources cited here do not indicate that Affiliation Quebec has moved beyond the "idea for a group" stage to an actual group where members meet and have activities. (This is what I should have written a week ago).Galteglise 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I couldn't agree more. That's what I was trying to articulate. GreenJoe 20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "The party has held one public meeting..." Only one meeting? How is it even arguable that this deserves its own article? Otherwise, every one-off political meeting deserves its own article, on the grounds that it may, someday, develop into a political party or organization.24.201.90.18 13:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC) — 24.201.90.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • WP:ORG :"Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found". Of which there are plenty, namely news articles.Toddsschneider 20:50, 8 August 2007 (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.