On 1/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:47:56 -0500, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond(a)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