On 5/1/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)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."?