On 1/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:47:56 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I'm with you. But process AND policy and whatever else don't let you just junk an article based on sourcing alone, as sourcing could be found. Part of that five day thing, etc.
It all comes back to the firehose of crap. Mistakes get made in both directions, but this article was never deleted anyway.
This thread was never supposed to be about that article. I brought it up as an example, because you asked for one, but my purpose was to see if there was some sort of consensus as to the meaning of CSD A7. Apparently, there really isn't. At least one person said that software categorically does not fall under A7, someone said it can, but only if the article is "blatantly non-notable", and others seemed to suggest that any article which doesn't claim to have two respectable independent published sources is a CSD under A7.
This particular article wound up staying, at least for now, most likely in part because I spent the 41 minutes I spent making sure that it didn't qualify under even the harshest of interpretations of A7. But it's still not clear whether or not that was necessary.
Anthony