geni wrote:
On 30/09/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I undeleted it and reformatted the article so that it _looked_ "more complete" - gave it a references section and an inline reference to that news article, added some pointless wikilinks, and mentioned one of their products (though the product itself doesn't have a Wikipedia page). That seems to have been sufficient for it to be kept this time.
So you turned a substub into a stub? It is to be expected that that would improve it's survival chances.
Not really, I just prettied it up a bit. IMO anyway - I've never been clear on the substub/stub distinction, or why substubs are bad and stubs are good.