On 2/3/08, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Is it really your intent to claim that every deleted
sourceable to begin with?
No, but thank you so much for asking. I would hate for that
misconception to circulate. You might notice that I said "redeemable
page", not "any given page".
If so, why don't those who fight so ardently to
save them give them the
best bulletproofing you can give--CITE LOTS OF SOURCES?
Bullet resistant, yes. Bulletproof, no. Knife-proof, well... it depends.
I've had exactly zero of the articles I've
created sent to AfD, because I
do not write articles without appropriate sourcing -up front-.
Good work, but hopefully I don't have to tell you what happens when
you call too much attention to your winning streak.
No one's going to challenge an article that cites
a lot of
sources, not even if it's a stub.
Make it idiot-proof and somebody will build a better idiot.