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. Sources found prove notability. (non-admin closure) J 947^{( c)} 20:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Office des professions du Québec

Office des professions du Québec (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a government agency, which basically just paraphrases its own mission statement in bullet points and fails to include any real substance (or even much actual prose beyond the base statement that it exists), and which cites no reliable source coverage about the agency to get it over WP:ORGDEPTH. The only "reference" present here at all, in fact, is the external link to its own website. As always, an organization does not get an automatic notability freebie just because it exists; it must be the subject of reliable source coverage for an article to become earned. Bearcat ( talk) 21:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment This appears to have been a translation from the French Wikipedia. Veillg1 ( talk · contribs) even used a {{ homonymy see}} template that is on French Wikipedia as {{ voir homonymes}} (this is their disambiguation hatnote template) So it is badly attributed -- 70.51.200.162 ( talk) 03:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• • NOTE this appears to be a continuing problem with user:Veillg1, with new articles lacking attribution, being translated from French Wikipedia with this user. There's no edit summary describing it came from fr.wiki; nor is there a talk page attribution template. -- 70.51.200.162 ( talk) 04:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• But there does seem to be quite a lot of news coverage. This recent La Presse article, for one. This Le Devoir story from 2014, and so on. Bearcat describes all the problems with the article quite accurately, but I'd say it's notable, regardless. Keep. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• The OPQ (Office des professions du Québec) is an important organism of Quebec Government, regulating 385K professionals who are grouped in 46 "Professional Orders" and 54 professions. I am surprised that such important government body is subject to discussion about possible deletion. Keep. ( User talk:Veillg1) 14:30, 16 April 2017 (HNE)
• Keep per Shawn in Montreal's reasons. SJK ( talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (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.