Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garneau User Group

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 of the debate was MERGE to École Secondaire Catholique Garneau. -- Jonel | Speak 04:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garneau User Group

High school club. Non-notable, delete. Neutrality^talk 15:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: this is a station of the http://www.apcug.net/ (the Association of Personal Computer User Groups (APCUG)). An internatationaly recognized organization. At worst merge with the high schools main article, probably creating a definate eye soar. (DEFINATELY DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT AS PER WP:DP) --CyclePat 17:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with school article as usual in such cases. For the benefit of CyclePat, "non-notable" is a shorthand used by many to denote the fact that this information is not verifiable from reliable sources due to lack of coverage in mainstream media; also there are issues of currency since the membership, focus and even existence of school clubs changes frequently. In this specific case there is plenty of precedent for covering such clubs in the school article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you JzG for the clarification. However, I believe this article has already been throught the verifiable] test and reliable source test. This discusion should be happening on the talk page. Any further reference to verifiable should be put there. Apparently the GUG still exists and has joined the internationally renowned APCUG. This nomination is pure deletionism and abuse of the wikipedia deletion system. I sugest that voting be clearly explained. why is this subject "obscure"?

Pure deletionism? The club has demonstrated no notability outside its own sphere, meaning the high school. The fact that it is a "chapter" of some umbrella user group organization does not make it more inherently notable. It should be merged to the high school, where it has context and impact. I note that on the talk page, the nominator is being threatened with an RfC over this issue. Pure frivolity. "Garneau User Group" gets 73 Google hits and should be merged. FCYTravis 20:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue of Neutrality's conduct is being discussed on the talk page and doesn't really have much to do now with this process. If he fails to answer and deletes one more users request for comment on his user page, I will be obliged to follow through with that RFC. Now it is perhaps understable that notability may be at issue. I did a search on google and only came up with about 20 some hits in french. I think it doesn't realy mater but if you want to waste your time on that (googling) did you try the french version too? Groupe d'utilisateurs Garneau. So back to the question, what makes this subject "obscure?" (aside from the lack of Google ability) I mean this is a mostly a french language run club. Did you also check the links at the bottom of our article (sources). The information is verifiable. --CyclePat 21:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

comment:Can you imagine! There is a deletion nomination that is currently happening for this page Garneau user group. It was nominated by user:Neutrality and for reason of being no-notable. "The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable." And though I may currently be torn between some issues found at WP:N (reasons for not deleting this article), I must, on my first impression, agree that it makes sense to merge with the High school. I however am flabbergasted and disagreeing on the fundamental principal behind the nomination. The nominee has failed to follow procedure. What I mean by that is, I believe that there are other processes he could have used. For example: Instead of going directly to a deletion he could have put a merger request or even an information validity... I would have probably happilly gone along and merged the articles. Secondly why is this article, "obscure?" (The thing is we really don't know). I've attempted to contact user:Neutrality on 2 occasions and he has totally ignored my requests. Is this normal? On both times he has even reverted his talk page. (For supporting evidence see section 1 of User:CyclePat\building a case for RFC). This issue is being discussed a little more in detail at talk:Garneau user group however your feedback, and knowledge of wiki, would be appreciated. All this to say, deletion reform is necessary, and lets not allow such actions to go on without repercusions. Please, I ask, can anyone ask user:Neutrality the questions I have asked. --CyclePat 06:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read the infobox at User talk:Neutrality you will immediately see why your comments have been removed. And I'm sorry to have to break this to you, Pat, but sometimes when everybody else disagrees with you, it's because you are wrong :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: please note I have already voted. This is just a coment: I have added a [wikiquette alert] in regards to this subject. I have advised user:Neutrality (see his page history) I consider this to be bad wikiquette. Until this issue is resolved I request that this and it's associated pages not be delete. I believe these pages may need to be used as evidence. --CyclePat 15:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD debates do not get deleted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. But, I'm not sure if I'll need this page, from the article, to demonstrate part of my argument. The reason being it demonstrates one of the possibilities he could have done instead? Again, I'm not sure. I guess I could always request undelete later on if really necessary (That's if we do delete this page. It appears like we might be merging. But don't we delete the page after merging anyway... or should we redirect?) --CyclePat 16:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, once a merge is done, we can't delete in order to keep the GFDL-required attribution history. A redirect is put in place, but the old contents are kept in history. Merge is quite different then delete, and this article is doing better then most such clubs, which would simply be deleted. --Rob 16:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Easy bit first: that information which is verifiable from reliable external sources should be summarised in École Secondaire Catholique Garneau (being, that it has a chapter of the national association of user groups, that it has taken part in conventions etc., that it publishes an occasional magazine). Don't forget about WP:V and WP:RS, and if you're at all uncertain read WP:RS twice very carefully to see the precise circumstances in which certain types of information can be used as a source; for preference then cite the sources although if it's trivially easy to verify the information a comment on the talk page is probably sufficient.

Technically the GFDL forbids deleting of merged content; that depends I guess on whether it is merged or summarised from a review of those reliable sources which can be found (if it's summarised from sources, arguably the GFDL restriction does not apply; also if the original editors enter the new, slimmed-down, verified content the rstriction may not apply - it's a grey area in my view, but Uncle G will know the formally correct answer).

Now to the issue you have with Neutrality. Frankly you are wasting your time. Anybody can nominate any article for deletion at any time. Articles nominated in error should not get deleted (and when this is really obvious the nomination is sometimes withdrawn, at others there is an early closure with consensus speedy keep or some such). But that does not change the fundamental fact that bringing an article to AfD is not, in itself, a big deal; it's the AfD debate that matters. Excessive, frivolous or contentious nominations might be construed as vandalism, but there is no evidence of that here, Neutrality is a prolific and widely-respected editor, a long-time admin, a member of ArbCom. This AfD was not contentious in any way, there is established precedent for merging school clubs to the school article or deleting them altogether (and very little precedent for anything else). This is addressed in a light-hearted way in WP:NFT and WP:BAI. Neutrality states on his Talk page that he does not get involved in minor disputes - and he's not getting involved in this one either. You now know what the score is with respect to this particular AfD, so you have the information you wanted, and I would suggest that should be enough. His lack of response could be construed as "why the hell shouldn't I nominate it?" - and given precedent, there is no reason why not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice: however, An RFC on Neutrality's conduct has been raised. It can be found here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Neutrality1 02:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per JzGyk?'s typically insightful commentary. FCYTravis 19:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the school. Kappa 21:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per JzG,yk? (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to École Secondaire Catholique Garneau any independently verifiable information. --Rob 05:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per previous precendents. Stifle 23:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. Ambi 02:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per JzG Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:00, 19 January 2006 (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.