Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parti Unité Nationale


 * 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 no consensus. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Parti Unité Nationale

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a non-notable party, which has apparently never elected anyone, or gotten as much as 1/10 of 1% of the vote (that is less than one out of every thousand voters) in any election. A google search found a number of news stories listing them among the parties that have registered candidates, and one very brief interview with the head of the party, but nothing beyond a passing mention. In looking for sources, please note that there is or was a party of the same name in Hati, apparently it was associatied with the Duvalier government. Do not confuse the two. Mos the the hits I found were in French, but Google Translate is good enough to distinguish a passing mention from significant coverage, and I still read a little French anyway. Someone claiming to represent the party posted at the Teahouse recently, asking that "false statements" be removed or else the article deleted. This person claimed that the version on the French-language Wikipedia was correct, and had been deleted for "no reason". Apparently it had been deleted for their equivalent of lack of notability. DES (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC) DES (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * *I just added the former name to the find sources. no comment on AfD status at this point. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added an link to an article in Le Devoir, which is Quebec's newspaper of record. The article does not mention the party in passing - the article is about the party. This was just the first article I came to. Ground Zero &#124; t 01:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note to searchers: as well as the Haitian party noted by above, there seems to have been a fascist party of more or less the same name, the "parti de l'Unité nationale du Canada", as reported in this nasty little piece in Le Devoir of 18 August 1938. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It is a registered political party in Quebec. That alone makes it notable. There is no justification for limiting Wikipedia to major parties. This one has run candidates in four consecutive elections, which is more than a lot of other parties. If there are false statements, they should be identified and removed, but that is not a reason to delete an article. Wikipedia would not be improved by this deletion. Ground Zero &#124; t 00:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, . Where is the guideline that says that being a registered party makes a group notable? WP:ORGSIG says:
 * "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists. (wiki-links and notes in source omitted."
 * I think that is the proper standard to follow. Where has this party been discussed in any depth by independent sources? Any small but dedicated group can register as a party and run candidates. That does not mean that anyone ever takes any notice of them. One article I found seemed to say that there were only 300 members of this party (although I may have misread this). Small does not mean non-notable, but small and ignored does. DES (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now until a better article can be made as I found no obvious better improvement (unless others can find better especially French). SwisterTwister   talk  07:15, 14 November 2015 (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.