Talk:Garrick Club

message: I fail to see the notability of this establishment, or any reason to list it here. Timdlocklear (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unlike its New York counterpart, there is no mention of notable/famous members, and the only source cited here is the club's website. Placing an AFD tag on page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdlocklear (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability?

message: I originally nominated this article for deletion because, with no previous knowledge of the subject, the article gives absolutely no hint to notability. 
After more research, apparently there are several famous members and there is some mention of an extensive art collection.
I note, however, that the article in its current form is severely and damningly deficient. Without knowing anything about the Garrick Club, this just looks like some club fan or business owner created their own page for advertisement purposes (a POV which can be further solidified by the fact that the edit history says "Removed Advertisement.")
There are no sources, as well, aside from the club's own website.
I realize that my AfD recommendation did not go over well, but in all honesty if this place is truly as notable as many are claiming it needs some serious TLC, some sources, and explanatory text as to exactly why the club is significant.
As I pointed out in the AfD debate, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A user should not have to notice a subject here and then be required to go out and research it, the research needs to come here! For God's sakes, tell us why the darn (edit) place is important or just delete it already!
::Also Noting that much of this article is written in British slang, and is not in line with quality standards for Wikipedia.
Timdlocklear (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The process of deletion does require that you make some effort at improving an article before nominating for deletion. A search is always a good start.  --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately, all is well and resolved now, and I see that someone has taken the initiative of editing to improve the article. I have seen articles nominated for deletion for far less than questionable notability, so it is highly doubtful that my AfD nomination based on speculative reasoning is going to have a severe and unrepairable impact on the Wikipedia community. There will be no pleasing those offended that I don't know what the heck this is, but maybe the same folks will edit this to a point to where it actually explains itself. Timdlocklear (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume "unrepairable" is American slang for irreparable? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD is an Overwhelming "No," but...

message: A listing of current notable members would be a fine thing. But until someone with the knowledge, probably a member with the wit to edit WP, gets on board, I have meanwhile removed the following one entry to this page.
*Adam Raphael'RAPHAEL, Adam Eliot Geoffrey' in Who's Who 2008 online, retrieved June 26, 2008, from RAPHAEL, Adam Eliot Geoffrey JohnClarknew (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable members

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here  -- TinucherianBot (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD]] Tagging

message: Article says "around 1,30 members" - should that be 1,300? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership figure 

message: The two listings of past members and notable members seems to overlap as some of the "notable members" (on the bottom), according to the wikipedia articles about them, have passed away. (Noël Coward, John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, John Mortimer)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.124.21 (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable members. 

message: This needs to be rewritten in the style o an encyclopaedia...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.86.193 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like a Who's Who of Actors? 

message: This article was very poor and a sad state of affairs. Reading above, the notability was questioned. To explain, and perhaps this still is captioned, but there is a common impression that these secretive private members clubs of very senior public figures, including judges, politicians, businessmen, etc are the real place work gets done, or where people with connections will help other members etc.
In this case, like many, it's all male, which in itself has been extensively reported on just on the view that if these societies exist, shouldn't women be allowed to network, further their interests, etc.
Most of the content talking about past members and art works etc, has been lifted from the Garrick website. It's descriptive, it will be hard to independently reference.
For now, I've focused on the issues associated with the club that have been well reported in the major reliable broadsheets etc. Next I will add the implications of male-only membership to a society or club perceived as the place to do business. Montezuma69 (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rework 

message: The Guardian bangs on about conflicting legal advice the Garrick received (from the same barrister) in relation to the Equality Act (I do hope the advice was free) affording (so called) rights to acquire membership of gentleman's clubs. 
White's Club is older than the Garrick and does not allow women to join or visit (their club) even as a guest (apart from the late, Queen Elizabeth II).
There are no rights for men or women to join single sex clubs, unless their rules specify exceptions. It may be an anomaly in 2024, but the all male or female clubs, as things stand are entitled to set a membership criteria based on gender, despite the best efforts of Harriet Harman MP. Jaymailsays (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has, "The Guardian" got it wrong yet again?  

message: User:Jaymailsays has asked this to be taken to the talk page: an external link footnote on a see also link is not a thing on Wikipedia, right? A MOS:SEEALSO wikilink is either appropriate for inclusion or not.
I'm not even sure what purpose this footnote is meant to be serving. Does Jaymailsays want to externally link to some online lists of women's clubs "for balance"? Direct comparisons to the Garrick Club could go in the text if sources exist, but direct links to such websites don't seem like they belong in the "see also" or "external links" sections. Belbury (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Belbury There isn't anything that says we are prevented from having a relevant external link to a source. In the current context of the Garrick refusing to allow female membership, a link to female private clubs that mirror the rules of the Garrick is wholly appropriate. In the future, if content is updated and expanded to deal with the broader debate and we mostly think the footnote link can be removed, that's ok too. But we are not at that stage. Jaymailsays (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LINKSTOAVOID has  at #13. Your list blog article about women's members' clubs does not include any mention of the Garrick or gentlemen's clubs, so it is not directly related. Belbury (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote on women's clubs see also link