Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Party Canada (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free Party Canada

edit
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Free Party Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New article created after previous article deleted just a few days ago; WP:G4 rejected. Article still suffers from the same WP:NORG problems, namely that there is little to demonstrate that this one-issue anti-vaccine fringe party is encyclopedically notable. Sources used are still the party's own website, evidently press releases by the party or the candidates, or passing mentions in coverage of anti-vaccination movements more generally. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per the prior AFD, political parties are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to use primary sourcing to verify that they exist — the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about the party in media to get it over WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. The Le Journal de Québec citation is the only one here that's starting to put a foot on the right path — but it doesn't get this to the finish line all by itself if it's the only solid major media source in play and you're otherwise relying on a mixture of primary sources and smalltown community hyperlocals. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD allows local sources to be utilized to demonstrate notability if at least one national or regional source is included. The sheer amount of local coverage puts this subject across the finish line. Mottezen (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AUD most certainly does not say (or mean) that the moment you can find one decent quality source from major media you're allowed to rely entirely on smalltown community hyperlocals otherwise. Local coverage isn't entirely verboten in Wikipedia, and I never said it was, but local coverage isn't necessarily enough all by itself if it's virtually all that a topic actually has — we do require broad coverage from a variety of major media, not just smalltown pennysavers, and that coverage does have to be analytical in nature rather than just local reportage of election campaign events and results. One national source is merely the starting line, the bare minimum that has to be present just to make the article not speediable — it is not in and of itself the finish line, and does not represent enough coverage to automatically require keeping the article in a full AFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article creator here. Didn't realise there was a previous AfD. In my opinion, it's just unencyclopedic to have a party that got 46000 votes (and counting, 1%-2% everywhere it ran) and federally seventh party in terms of support not to have a page. The Le Journal de Québec piece gives plenty of information; I'll look for more and better sources, but there's plenty of regional coverage of particular candidates (and I don't see anything in notability that would disqualify local coverage). In my opinion, someone looking at the 2021 election in 2050 will want to know that this was a "Free from Covid-restrictions" rather than a free trade or a free zoo animals or a correctional reform party. I assume everyone realises, but just for reference, coverage is pretty much all in French so English non-finds not so relevant. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, precedent from similar election results in past elections. Kingofthedead (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What precedent do you think you're talking about? We very definitely don't have any precedent that running candidates in an election is any sort of automatic free notability pass for a fringe political party, so what precedent do you think you're talking about? Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and looked at all Cdn federal elections since 2000 inclusive, and there is no party with over 10,000 votes without a WP page, and most under 1,000 do. The closest is the 2019 Veterans Coalition at 6,300. FPC has more than 7 times that support. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: It’s very easy to find adequate french-language sources on this party on Google. Mottezen (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly all of the sources you can find, including many currently used in the article, report the same info you'd find in a campaign flyer, and in the same promotional tone: here's some basic biographical info on the candidate and their vague, idealistic vision of what they'll do if they're elected, with no editorial or critical review whatsoever. Here are some examples:
    1. [1]: "le Parti libre souhaite bâtir une économie locale plus solide, soutenir les aînés pour qu’ils n’aient pas à payer des loyers exorbitants et améliorer l’accès aux services." (Roughly: "The Free Party wants to build a stronger local economy, support seniors so they don't pay exorbitant rents and improve access to services.")
    2. [2]: "Son implication en politique se résume à la maxime suivante : « Je ne changerais pas mes enfants pour rien au monde, mais je changerais le monde pour mes enfants ». ("Her political involvement is summarized by the maxim, 'I would never change my children for anything in the world, but I would change the world for my children.'")
    3. [3]: "La jeune mère de famille veut une démocratie qui laisse plus de place aux jeunes. Elle se définit comme une citoyenne tannée qui veut que ça change." ("The young mother wants a democracy that makes room for youth. She defines herself as a [bold? literally "tanned"] citizen who wants things to change."
    4. [4]: "Le Parti libre prône une démocratie directe et donne la priorités aux enfants, parce qu’au final, on fait ça pour eux. Je pense beaucoup à la prochaine génération." ("The Free Party preaches direct democracy and giving priority to children, because in the end, we do it for them. I think a lot about the next generation.")
    5. [5]: This strange "interview", in which the party's leader rants and raves about the "acidification" of Saint-Sauveur, and actions he would take to "alkalize" the community, which for one is clearly not an interview (the supposed interviewer doesn't ask any questions) and is also not about the Free Party, it's about Leclerc's run for mayor of Saint-Sauveur in 2016.
    These are all clearly press releases written by the Party, given to local papers for free publicity, which the local papers print with minimal review (see the second bullet under WP:NEWSORG, or churnalism more generally). Also notice how the candidate photos used in the article are the same ones that appear on the Party's website. They cannot be used to establish notability: they are not independent, and rather than evidence that the organization attracts any level of local or regional attention, they are evidence that the Party has a marketer on staff.
    That all being said, the remaining few sources suggest an organization that may be worthy of inclusion in a List of minor political parties in Canada if such a list existed (there is such a list for Israel and I'm sure others must exist). But there is just not enough reliably-sourceable information on this party to warrant an entire article. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You highlighted the worst of these articles in the list above, but here are better local sources currently in the article. While they mostly rely on information given by the Free party or the candidates themselves, the majority of local sources in the article are not republished press releases, but firmly secondary sources. One of them was even republished by the Canadian Press. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:PEIsquirrel tanné(e) means "fed up" in Qc French.
Interviews, in which somebody directly associated with the party is answering questions in the first person, are not support for notability — a source has to be third party analysis, written in the third person, to be legitimate support for notability. This is because notability is not a measure of the things the article says, it's a measure of the extent to which sources without a vested interest in promoting their own activities have analyzed and assessed the significance of the things it says. So notability is not "the party did stuff", it's "the party garnered a certain specific type, depth, volume and range of media coverage about the stuff it did". Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat It seems to me that Notability doesn't say it needs to be analytical. In reality the range of coverage that needs to be met is a judgment call around what constitutes 'significance.' The party gets voted for enough and covered in minor ways in third-party reliable sources (Radio-Canada, TVA, Journal du Quebec, small broadcasters and papers) enough for me to deem that it is significant, but not for you. Fair enough. But there isn't actually a specific type or depth or volume. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, when a political party runs in 60 ridings and gets tens of thousands of votes, I don’t care about whether it meets a SNG designed to exclude ad-like articles or not. Mottezen (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing you have to keep in mind is that sometimes sources that look like news coverage are actually still just thinly-veiled rewrites of the party's own self-published press releases about itself rather than coverage that actually establishes notability. Sources don't just have to verify facts, they have to establish the significance of said facts — for example, the mayor of a town or city is not automatically notable just because you can find one news article verifying her winning vote totals in the mayoral election, and instead establishing the notability of a mayor requires substantive coverage of specific things she did in the role. So notability is not "the facts can be verified", it is "a reason can be shown why the preservation of said facts in an encyclopedia for posterity is important". Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The result this party got in the election is reason enough to keep this encyclopedic article. Users have to keep in mind that this party did not even have a website one month ago. WP:NORG's otherwise justified emphasis on the quality of sources used in articles is too burdensome in this case, and can be ignored. Mottezen (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was indifferent on the first AfD, but there seems to be enough sources now. Plus, I think they did surprisingly well in the election for a fringe party (they won more votes than the Greens in a number of ridings), so I believe there is an encyclopedic need for this article, as I think people will be curious about what they're all about and why the did so well.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From what I can determine, the party won a significant percentage of the vote in several ridings, and especially in Quebec. Even if the party does not see success in the next election, it will remain historically relevant for the results of this election. The National Citizens Alliance has an extensive article of 25000 bytes which is 50 bytes for every vote it received.
Gardez. D'après ce que je peux déterminer, le parti a remporté un pourcentage important du vote dans plusieurs circonscriptions, et surtout au Québec. Même si le parti ne connaît pas de succès lors de la prochaine élection, il restera historiquement pertinent pour les résultats de cette élection. Alliance nationale des citoyens a un article étendu de 25000 octets, soit 50 octets pour chaque vote qu'elle a reçu. CactusRoy (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have undone the inappropriate early closure by a new editor. Please let the AfD run its normal 7-day course. Also, this is the English WP and comments should be in English, not in another language. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential discussion about the use of English in AfD debates.
Is the use of English-only a requirement? Seems an unnecessary restriction in the day of right-click, translate. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,I agree it's not necessary. I write first in French, Then I use Google Translate and put the English first. I leave the French, so you can determine my exact meaning.CactusRoy (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. If you cannot write in English except by using online translation, then you should consider contributing to the French WP. Machine translations are not acceptable in article space and may confuse discussions on talk pages. You cannot assume that other editors will understand your original French to check your translation. Now please take this discussion elsewhere, this is not the place for it. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENGLISHPLEASE says "If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation." User:CactusRoy's English translation was easy to understand, and it's reasonable to assume that an article about a Quebec matter will attract bilingual editors who can look at the French original if there's a difficulty with the translation. Your response might not be the best way of welcoming a new user. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering aside, it's obvious that the intent of ENGLISHPLEASE is that editors should use English. The exception is for cases where a source in another language is quoted directly, not for discussion at AfD by an editor who doesn't speak English. And, again, this is NOT the place to discuss this issue, this is an AfD, so I am going to collapse this irrelevant discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a distressing level of Anglo-chauvinism from User:Randykitty. According to your user page, you visited in Quebec. Then how can you visit here, and have such disrespect ? French is the language of my Ancestors. I will speak French when and where I should desire to do it. I used my civil right to free speech as a Quebecker to close the discussion. You are an Angloid, The fact that you feel a right to comment on this issue is a grave insult. Then you should be glad, you are not here in person with me. When Quebec is FREE and WHOLE we will not have this problem of stupid tabarnak anglo like you. CactusRoy (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For reference to the closer - and any Admin who want's to block (bloc?) User:CactusRoy for breaking the civility rules here, tabernaq anglo, is Quebec French and essentially means "fucking English people". Nfitz (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock Your pun on Bloc Québécois is not funny. The oppression of Francophones in the false-state of 'Canada' is a serious issue and you cannot fix it by making jokes. Wikipedia is a jovial setting and not a courthouse, I reserve the right to use my native language in all its capacities. I am remaining civil with my respected Anglo opponent. And as you see, now I am replying in English only. CactusRoy (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a jovial setting, but you don't like my pun? That's no fun.
I'm the one defending your right to use French. Is the "na.." word still acceptable in Canadian English? On a more serious topic - I was surprised there was no French version of this article (there should be!) Nfitz (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There are enough reliable sources cited to establish notability. Sources do not have to be exclusively in English. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another language tangent
Thanks for your support brother. Seems there are enough fools around here but you are not one of them. If it is Quebec party, then the source can be in English, or French, or in any other language as you have many enwiki articles with sources in foreign languages on foreign topics. CactusRoy (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever said that sources needed to be in English. Indeed, sources can be in any language, as long as they are reliable. It's the discussion here that should be understandable for every participant. And your previous remarks (in the collapsed section) were not exactly civil with on top of that a veiled threat of bodily harm. You got a "level 2" warning for that, but should realize that I could just as well could have taken you to WP:ANI and have you blocked for that. But it seems like you got the message and I look forward to see your contributions to Quebec-related topics (or indeed any topic of your liking). --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the comment was bilingual, anyone who reads either language could understand it. Puisque le commentaire était dans les deux langues, tous qui sont capables de lire l'une ou l'autre ont pu comprendre. 10:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
No, the French was given "so you can determine my exact meaning", with a machine-translation to English. And while machine translations are quite good nowadays, they are still far from perfect, so only if you understand French can you be certain what the comment exactly says. And can we now please stop commenting on this side issue and concentrate on the AfD discussion? --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give this in only one language so you can "determine my exact meaning." You started the tangential discussion with a pointless rebuke in response to an unambiguous comment from a new Wikipedian on a language-use matter that was sure to be politically sensitive. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be enough independent significant RS to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did look at this initially and think of closing, but given strong opposition expressed by a few, I felt better to !vote. The publicly expressed political interests of sizable segments of a population are inherently notable. To be crude this is quantitative: if we have political parties receiving more votes than the populations of some nation states (eg Monaco, Faroe, Marshall Islands) whose politicians are accorded presumed notability under NPOL we should resolve this inconsistency in favour of inclusion and not deletion of the similarly small. Located in context (COVID-19/surge in populist right politics/fringe anti-science/well-being politics) this is a political phenomenon attracting electoral support worthy of note. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to have enough coverage + participation in election grants it some amount of historical significance. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 30 September 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free_Party_Canada_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1047448559"