This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
There is no synthesis. All we are saying is that DreamHost was founded by 4 students from Harvey Mudd, and then providing references for that fact. That's it. No other assertions, no other claims, no synthesis. --
Scjessey (
talk)
03:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This is getting to be beyond ridiculous. Find a reference that so states it without any ambiguity, add it to the article and move on. I'll back the addition if well referenced. I made another comment on the article talkpage and I'm assuming that you would agree that the way the article is written now has no "meat" and reads like something a 3 y/o would come up with. I learn nothing notable or of any encyclopedic value from as it stands. How can something that has made it through two attempts at deletion, still look like a candidate for AFD? IF it is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, why are there not enough third party reliable sources for improvement? It's appalling.JavierMC06:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
There is no synthesis. All we are saying is that DreamHost was founded by 4 students from Harvey Mudd, and then providing references for that fact. That's it. No other assertions, no other claims, no synthesis. --
Scjessey (
talk)
03:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This is getting to be beyond ridiculous. Find a reference that so states it without any ambiguity, add it to the article and move on. I'll back the addition if well referenced. I made another comment on the article talkpage and I'm assuming that you would agree that the way the article is written now has no "meat" and reads like something a 3 y/o would come up with. I learn nothing notable or of any encyclopedic value from as it stands. How can something that has made it through two attempts at deletion, still look like a candidate for AFD? IF it is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, why are there not enough third party reliable sources for improvement? It's appalling.JavierMC06:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)