That's going to be my last reply, as it seems to me that basically you do not agree with the verifiability policy.
I don't think anyone actually follows the policy (in its strict interpretation), so I'm not alone. I do believe we should have a workable policy, and what I'm advocating comes pretty close to what is actually followed in practice: harmful material must be verifiable, otherwise warn readers about unverifiable material.
The trouble with current policies is that, every so often, individuals or groups go on rampages, putting whole topics and topic groups that are useful to some but not particularly verifiable through the "reliable" sources up for deletion. Those interested in the article can't defend it properly because the policies, as written, side with those asking for it to be deleted, even if that's not the way in which they're "meant to be interpreted," and even if the articles are entirely true and nobody's arguing with their accuracy. Net result, fewer articles.
Of course, many of the articles deleted in such cases deserve it. This is not an argument for poorly written stubs. Still, I'm sure regular AfD patrollers can think of plenty of situations where they really want to have an excuse not to delete an article, but just can't argue with the people saying that, by the rules, it should be deleted. This is not a good situation to be in. People should not have to look for verifiability excuses to prevent deletion. They should be able to say with a clear conscience, "No, I think this information is useful, and accurate, and it should stay in our encyclopedia."
--- Laurence "GreenReaper" Parry http://greenreaper.co.uk/ - http://wikifur.com/
_________________________________________________________________ It's Hotmail's 10th Birthday! Come and play Pass the Parcel http://www.msnpasstheparcel.com