Talk:2019 Asturian regional election

Actúa
keeps adding Actúa in the table together with the main parties and coalitions running for the elections, on the basis that "Llamazares was represented in parliament as the leader of an entire parliamentary group until he unexpectedly resigned a few days ago (at the time he still had the support of all his colleagues in the parliamentary group). It's too early for polling to verify notability. Given the circumstances, Actúa is clearly notable in Asturias until a poll comes out proving otherwise.". Firstly, Llamazares will not even run in Asturias, so just because he was notable MP in the region does not turn his party notable. As per WP:INHERITORG, An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. Secondly, notability when it comes to organizations (WP:ORG) requires sources that verify such a notability for the organization, obviously. Thirdly, as per WP:ORGSIG, No company or organization is considered inherently notable. Actúa is not presumed notable until a source proves it otherwise, it's the other way around: it will not be notable in Asturias unless sources report it as notable. For now, considering Actúa in Asturias is on the same notability level as PSOE, PP, Podemos or even Vox (which does not have any seats but at least is shown obtaining seats in opinion polls) is a clear case of WP:UNDUE. In my view, if polls report Actúa as a notable party then we may consider it as notable enough to add it in the main table, not before. Impru 20 talk 09:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the conversation here, . It's a valid point that secondary sources should be included explaining the significance of Actúa in the Asturian elections. However, I think that requiring polling is an unrealistic burden of proof. Since Llamazares hadn't intended to compete against his own party, no polling agency would have included Actúa in their polling. Therefore, recent polling isn't a reliable indicator of support for Actúa. Nor should we expect polling specific to the Asturian regional election to be done in the near future given that the Cortes will soon be dissolved. The attention of pollsters will likely be on the April election. Wikipedia should be flexible enough to represent recent significant developments. Can we agree to center our debate over inclusion of Actúa on the analysis provided by reliable sources? --JECE (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * requiring polling is an unrealistic burden of proof No, I think it is quite fair, specially considering these are one type of reliable sourcing to back up the notability claims. Normally, one would say Actúa should not be added unless actually winning at least one seat in the election, as otherwise you wouldn't have any way to measure the notability of Actúa in Asturias (barring opinion polling) and its addition could be regarded as WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:UNDUE. Why should we list Actúa as a notable actor in Asturian politics if opinion polls do not even spot them? I think it is wise to wait and see whether Actúa becomes a notable political party in Asturias, as there is no hurry right now, and it would be awkward to add them now just to have them removed later on if they are not able to secure any notability in either opinion polling or election results. Keep in mind that the party has existed since September 2017 and that Llamazares has been announcing the party's launching since much time ago without it having any effect in opinion polls. We shouldn't base ourselves on unsourced presumptions as you suggest, as that would be entering into original research territory. Further, Actúa has announced it will contest the April general election, so it is actually an opportunity to check whether they may be regarded as relevant in Asturias or elsewhere. Impru 20  talk 17:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)