I can understand Jimbo's plaintive edit comment, because I've been
beset by the rabid prod-ninjas. See, for instance,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westar_Institute&action=histo…
where my article, with four cites from two websites, was marked less
than 3 minutes after I started it. OTOH, I see that his article is
notability-tagged:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Reality&diff=182707…
There is a deficiency in the Wikipedia media model in that it rewards
those who avoid tabular representation and expand each line into a
separate article. The notion that verifiability, not to mention
notability, is enough justify a separate article encourages this sort
of padding-- and it is padding, because there's no extra information
conveyed. I've been doing a lot of lighthouse articles, and really the
only thing that saves them from meriting this sort of treatment is
that each of them has a enough history to require a separate narrative
for each.