I apologize if I was misunderstood. i was discussing general principles, as I think were some of the others. And I thought i said myself that in some cases there would not be enough information to have an article. If there's a question on the N of a particular article, then AfD is the place to discuss it.-- David G
On 5/1/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I do not accept any arguments that obviously significant events or people should not be discussed because they weren't notable in the WP sense, when there are sources. This is censorship by evasion.
What nonsense. No one is proposing "censorship", just common sense editorial judgement. Your "sources" for this travesty of an article that we are discussing provide nothing but this woman's name, residence, and her codename ("Watchdog"). You can't even tell me when if she is alive or dead, much less what she is supposed to have done as Special Agent Watchdog of the KGB. That is sufficent to be mentioned in [[List of Americans in the Venona papers]], but hardly sufficient for an article. There is no coverup proposed here, and there couldn't be one since you have barely anything to cover up! When you have some actual information, then you can write an article.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l