On Fri, 11 May 2007, Andrew Gray wrote:
IIRC this was because there were sources saying David Gaiman the notable scientologist had a son called Neil, and lived in town X; and sources saying Neil Gaiman the author's father was named David and they also lived in town X - but no source saying 'David Gaiman the scientologist' and 'Neil Gaiman the author' were related.
There was a truly inspired debate on one talkpage (I just went to read it) which ran something like this:
A: I've heard some newspaper explicitly quoted the connection in an interview with David in 2005 (...) A: I've gone to the British Library and read the newspaper in question. Here is a bit. [quotes] B: I've seen that passage quoted on many Internet sites. I want to see it reprinted by a reliable source. We need to show that we're using the source itself, not some transcription on the internet. A: Er, this is quoting from the original. Which I have read. In the British Library. B: Oh, er.
I think the problem is that people want to remove it for some reason that has nothing to do with lack of sources. The sources are just an excuse. So when a source finally turns up, they have to grasp at straws for a reason to discount it.
It's the same reason we have dozens of sourced Pokemon articles: people who don't like Pokemon articles tried to remove them by demanding sources. You try that and all you get is sourced Pokemon articles.
And though this doesn't work for Neil Gaiman or Pokemon, in most other places it's very effective, which is why it keeps happening to begin with. Demanding sources is too convenient.