On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:55:38 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I looked at that discussion. People disagree with you over not counting sources as sources.
The article had two paragraphs. The first contained what the subject said was a falsehood. The second was negative and sourced to a blog. Many more sources have been produced during the AfD, it will be trivially easy to write a much better article from those. The DRV debate is several times the size of the original article. Hell, some of the individual statements on that debate are bigger than the deleted article.
It would be insane to an unsourced negative statement whose factual accuracy is disputed by the subject. That's half the article. The balance can be said better, and already is in [[Canadian Heritage Alliance]]. What is the benefit to the project of restoring a history full of attacks?
Guy (JzG)