On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:55:38 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee
<arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
I looked at that discussion. People disagree with you
over not counting
sources as sources.
The article had two paragraphs. The first contained what the subject
said was a falsehood. The second was negative and sourced to a blog.
Many more sources have been produced during the AfD, it will be
trivially easy to write a much better article from those. The DRV
debate is several times the size of the original article. Hell, some
of the individual statements on that debate are bigger than the
deleted article.
It would be insane to an unsourced negative statement whose factual
accuracy is disputed by the subject. That's half the article. The
balance can be said better, and already is in [[Canadian Heritage
Alliance]]. What is the benefit to the project of restoring a history
full of attacks?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG