Boy. The inclusionists love to make personal attacks when they can't bother to come up with valid arguments, but then they claim that *I* am the one making personal attacks.
To begin with, where is the "grammatical error" in "every person and every company ever in existence should be kept"? Secondly, where did I lie when you below support what I said?
RickK
Anthony DiPierro anthonydipierro@hotmail.com wrote: RickK lied, saying:
This would be great if it weren't for such users as Anthony DiPierro, who will, out of reflex, vote to keep any and every article ever written. He is on record as saying that every person and every company ever in existence should be kept, regardless of their notability or the
notability
of the articles written about them.
First of all, stop lying. I don't vote to keep any and every article, any more than you vote to delete every and every article.
As for my statement "that every person and every company ever in existence should be kept", the grammatical error in that statement points to where you misquoted me. I believe that every person and every company ever in existence is notable, and by that I mean the topic is worthy of note in Wikipedia. If an article on that person is not verifiable, then I don't think it should be kept. If an article on a company does not provide a link to a respectable source such as a government document or a newspaper article, then I don't think it should be kept (although if there is no reason to believe it is fake I think we could move it to the talk page).
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.