I apologize if I was misunderstood. i was discussing general
principles, as I think were some of the others. And I thought i said
myself that in some cases there would not be enough information to
have an article. If there's a question on the N of a particular
article, then AfD is the place to discuss it.-- David G
On 5/1/07, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/1/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I do not accept any arguments that obviously
significant events or
people should not be discussed because they weren't notable in the WP
sense, when there are sources. This is censorship by evasion.
What nonsense. No one is proposing "censorship", just common sense
editorial judgement. Your "sources" for this travesty of an article
that we are discussing provide nothing but this woman's name,
residence, and her codename ("Watchdog"). You can't even tell me when
if she is alive or dead, much less what she is supposed to have done
as Special Agent Watchdog of the KGB. That is sufficent to be
mentioned in [[List of Americans in the Venona papers]], but hardly
sufficient for an article. There is no coverup proposed here, and
there couldn't be one since you have barely anything to cover up!
When you have some actual information, then you can write an article.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.