On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:42:09 -0700, you wrote:
Although I may have a slightly more liberal attitude
toward NOR; I would
still view NPOV as having equally high sources. To me citing sources is
implicit in verifiability.
You'd have thought so. But we still could not achieve consensus to
delete this unsourced monstrosity:
See how the deleters cited policy while the keepers simply asserted
"it is true" or that deleting it would be "censorship"? If it is
true, surely there must be ''some'' reliable source, but none has been
presented even after two AfDs - a process which often results in
speedy resolution of that particular problem.
So once again we have kept by default an article which is completely
unverified, and given the lack of verifying evidence presented at two
AfDs almost certainly unverifiable.
Perhaps like Donkey Punch it will hang around until it achieves some
kind of tenuous reality - sexcruft seems to be one area where
protologisms are allowed on Wikipedia.