Talk:Garneau User Group
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 January 2006. The result of the discussion was MERGE to École Secondaire Catholique Garneau. |
Untitled[edit]
be careful not about starting articles on the people in this group. Policy for Biographies can be found at WP:BIO. It is my understanding that most (unnotable people are usually deleted... I've even seen a case of a high school football student in the states Mathew Stafford, who is recruited for college is seems notable but was not included. So, this is just a friendly reminder that way you may concentrat on other things for wiki. --CyclePat 17:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- k. thanks alot CyclePat paat 19:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
What room is are the meetings? --CyclePat 18:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- its le local 255 usually. Presently its during the lunch time. When I was writing GuG, i wasnt sure if it was nessessary to put in the class room number and when. paat 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
GuG - le group qui met toute les évaluations ensemble pour fair un GuGabits ...comitee thing i forget[edit]
The day school was out for Chrsitmas break, the editing team ( were were three accually, me, my friend and a 11th grader - oh and Mr. Legros). We just finished the GuGabits no. 12. He's at Las Vegas now, trying to get more products for us. But he said that it was gonna be the best GuGabits ever. And he relly liked the cover page - I did the cover page! so i cant wait for him to send us the pdf file of it... Cant wait ... ah well. So all this to say that when i get it, i will put it with the other GuGabits. paat 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- alright, so i guess i wont continue puttin the gugabits onto that page. BTW, should i put a list of our sponsers? paat 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- We're doing good. People just want to know what these awards are and who gave them to us/Garneau. If you have sources, that's the best way. I think if you put a section that says sources that should be good enought. --CyclePat 00:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean as in a subsection ("===n===") or a type of reference page? Even i dont understand what I'saying lol paat 19:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Reference[edit]
I dont know how to work on the reference for this page, as in how to prove where is my reference, but everything i took came from www.escgarneau.com paat 19:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- J'ai ajouté les réferences necessaires. Il sagisait de faire en sorte que l'information soit accessible plus facillement. (http://www.escgarneau.com/gug/apropos.shtml) --CyclePat 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- K. Merci beacoup. maintenant je comprends. merci paat 01:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
GuGabits[edit]
I merged it into this article, under its own section. -- Megamix? 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Megamix paat 03:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
deletion??[edit]
why is this article is being considered for deletion? paat 16:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I really don't know. But I can tell you this. Wikipedia is full of m:deletionims and deletionists. A lot don't think further then the end of their nose and call for deletion on everthing that they object to. --CyclePat 16:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't take lightly to such issues. I think we should look into user conduct RFC. Though this is bad behaviour that can be seen on many occasions, I think we should put our foot down and stand up for what we believe. To do so I suggest you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#User-conduct_RfC. That means our first step is to question the nominating user. I suggest we ask him the same question:
- Why, user [[Neutrality, have you nominated Garneau User Group for deletion and reasoning that it is "Non-notable" when that reason is not specified in the deletion policy WP:DP.
- We'll see what happens after we both ask him, that! --CyclePat 17:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't take lightly to such issues. I think we should look into user conduct RFC. Though this is bad behaviour that can be seen on many occasions, I think we should put our foot down and stand up for what we believe. To do so I suggest you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#User-conduct_RfC. That means our first step is to question the nominating user. I suggest we ask him the same question:
- User:Neutrality has removed my comment from his user page and fail to respond to my request for a discusion --CyclePat 21:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- User:Neutrality is at it again and has totally ignored my 2nd request to talk to him. (sources: User:CyclePat\building a case for RFC) --CyclePat 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
To respond to Paat: it is nominated because it is exceptional for any school club to merit inclusion in Wikipedia due to issues of verifiability from reliable sources, and due to the fact that they are generally transient and (by global standards) incredibly small. This applies to college and university clubs too. Only the really notable ones like Cambridge Footlights generally get their own articles. I have recommended a merger with the school article. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 
AfD? 22:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- That appears to be good precedence! To help my case! (I say that because I have never heard of http://www.footlights.org/ before today... eik! and I'm an Arts student!) however we know that knowlege of the subject and notability are to different things. To be perfectly honest I was looking for your answer in WP:N. You're using the reverse precedence. (understandable but it's just not as effective as if you had an actual school groupe example that was deleted) You have gained my respect for answering this. I think it goes in line with what I was "originially thinking." (you know that guy fealing... of... oh! yah... that's going to need to be merged)(However, I scratched that comment out, only because I believe this deletion was out of process (lacking the before hand warning of verifiability) and that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:N#Deletion_reform_is_necessary deletion reform is necessary]. As well, the other reasons here. For the deletion reform, the out of process deletion, the lack of your demonstrates subjective nature concerning notability. (The issue of defining a guideline?)... and until I get a response from the nominator I must remain opposed. --CyclePat 22:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- You may not have heard of Cambridge Footlights, but you have probably heard of some of the people who were members. People like Stephen Fry, David Frost, Peter Cook, Eleanor Bron, Trevor Nunn, the Monty Python team, Germaine Greer, Clive James and so on. Footlights is notable because it has a long association with ground-breaking comedy and satire quite unmatched by any comparable organisation. As to "out of process" you are, I'm afraid, on to a loser: whatever the precise text used, the fols over at AfD knew exactly what the nominator meant, and in any case the AfD discussion is what decides whether the article is kept or not per policy, and indeed which policy, not the nomination. Wikipedia is not a court of law where you can overturn a "conviction" on a technical deficiency in the original process of bringing to trial. If there is consensus (whether to delete, merge or keep) that consensus will be based on the article's contents and individual editors' reading of the relevant policies, with which the majority of AfD regulars are very familiar. It doesn't matter whether the nomination was naive, malicious or ill-informed, the AfD discussion and its closure by an admin is the process, not the nomination itself. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
AfD? 10:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- You may not have heard of Cambridge Footlights, but you have probably heard of some of the people who were members. People like Stephen Fry, David Frost, Peter Cook, Eleanor Bron, Trevor Nunn, the Monty Python team, Germaine Greer, Clive James and so on. Footlights is notable because it has a long association with ground-breaking comedy and satire quite unmatched by any comparable organisation. As to "out of process" you are, I'm afraid, on to a loser: whatever the precise text used, the fols over at AfD knew exactly what the nominator meant, and in any case the AfD discussion is what decides whether the article is kept or not per policy, and indeed which policy, not the nomination. Wikipedia is not a court of law where you can overturn a "conviction" on a technical deficiency in the original process of bringing to trial. If there is consensus (whether to delete, merge or keep) that consensus will be based on the article's contents and individual editors' reading of the relevant policies, with which the majority of AfD regulars are very familiar. It doesn't matter whether the nomination was naive, malicious or ill-informed, the AfD discussion and its closure by an admin is the process, not the nomination itself. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
- Hey, this is why i have put GuG on wikipedia: it is a user group that is known nationaly, and even internationally ( Canada and US mostly). Big companies want to konw about aour revues, and we are a revue made by tees, the biggest game and computer software consumer market thingy lolpaat 14:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)