Thomas Dalton wrote: If that is true, the burden would be on those wishing to retain, rather than the "author" (which is a concept best left out of wikipedia). But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any burden is discharged.

On 28/04/2009, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: No. I'm pretty sure that the principle is that any material that isn't referenced to a reliable source can be removed at any time, irrespective of consensus. -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be pretty ghastly though.

On 28/04/2009, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes, and after I've spent 1.5 seconds with google failing to find it, then the material is gone. This thing about: Is simply a lot of crap; the material has to have a reference or two or it can go at any time. And that's the bottom line. This may sound harsh, but it's the only thing that stops people adding OR. And you might argue that certain things are 'common sense' but I've spent significant fractions of my time on wikipedia talk pages laboriously listing multiple sources *in addition* to the reliable sources in the article to prevent people from replacing referenced facts with "common sense"... that was actually completely incorrect and unreferenced. I've had people explain to me that they have first-hand experience of things... and still get it completely and utterly wrong. Bottom line: this is not negotiable. -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be pretty ghastly though.