Talk:Sûreté du Québec

RFV discussion: April 2015–January 2016
I think that government entities ought to fall under WT:COMPANY so I'm requesting three cites for this as a common word. &mdash;Internoob 06:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe they ought to but I think it's clear enough from the wording at the moment that they don't. But CFI's been voted non-binding so whatever. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? I guess I've been away for too long. I didn't know that CFI was not binding any more. My thinking is that government entities are companies in sense 2 of the word. &mdash;Internoob 22:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * CFI has not been voted nonbinding. There was a vote on whether certain people's interpretation of CFI should take precedence over consensus in deletion discussions, and the vote didn't pass. That's a very far cry from CFI having been nonbinding. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The vote was to make CFI binding and it failed. The fact that it therefore isn't binding is not only a reasonable interpretation, it fits the facts. If we refuse to delete an entry that doesn't meet CFI, what happens? Who comes in and punishes us? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Phrasing makes a difference, does not it? You say the they ought to, not that they do, right? You're not even basing the nomination strictly within CFI, as far as I can see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that in my mind, government entities are companies and as such fall under WT:COMPANY. But since CFI doesn't define what it means by "company" it's possible that people will disagree with me. We might have to move to RFD to discuss this, if no one cites it as a common noun. &mdash;Internoob 17:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep; RFV should be based on WT:ATTEST and not on opinions and stances, unlike RFD. Furthermore, there is no consensual support for WT:COMPANY as per Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. I should not be usually posting "keep" in RFV, but I make an exception here because of the nature of the nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate, that heaven finds means to kill your joys! And I, for winking at your discords too, have lost a brace. All are punishèd. —Stephen (Talk) 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per all, including nominator. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV-passed through widespread use, and the fact that this subsequently turned into an RFD. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)