On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Me, I take a more practical view. WR has no known
and is a festering den of banned vanity spammers and other
malcontents. What they say about Wikipedia has no discernable
authority, it is a textbook case of an unreliable source.
If WR links were only deleted for not being reliable sources, we wouldn't
be *having* this fuss. Most of the questionable deletions of WR and similar
links are under circumstances where reliable sources are irrelevant--talk
pages, Wikipedia signpost, etc.