On 5/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I apologize if I was misunderstood. i was discussing general principles, as I think were some of the others. And I thought i said myself that in some cases there would not be enough information to have an article. If there's a question on the N of a particular article, then AfD is the place to discuss it.-- David G
Sorry I did not realize that your were not necessarily applying the principles you were discussing to the specific article in question. It's a no-brainer that Venona is an important historical topic of discussion, I really don't think anyone would dispute that fact or try to "cover it up", so in terms of general principles, there isn't anyone to argue with on that point, I would imagine. That very lack of argument is why I assumed you were applying those principles to this specific article and thus accusing people of wanting to cover up the vital information about Agent Watchdog. You did vote "keep" on that particular AfD, and I'm wondering why the fact that "She is one of those mentioned in this and the other books.", as you wrote in the AfD, is sufficent to justify this specific article. Could you apply the general principles you discuss to this particular case? Why is this not a case in which "there would not be enough information to have an article."?