The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 13:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply
To me, this looks as pure a violation of WP:IINFO as it's possible to get. But, it's been live for three years with no objection, so maybe I'm wrong. – iride scent 18:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)The argument against having an article doesn't hinge on its indiscriminacy. It's no more indiscriminate than, say, the Roman Catholic calendar of saints is. The argument that it does hinge upon is the reliability (in the long term) of the sources and thus whether it is possible to maintain an accurate article, as stated by Chris Neville-Smith below. Since at least one source has been republished annually, the question is whether these data are stable from year to year. Uncle G ( talk) 11:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 13:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply
To me, this looks as pure a violation of WP:IINFO as it's possible to get. But, it's been live for three years with no objection, so maybe I'm wrong. – iride scent 18:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)The argument against having an article doesn't hinge on its indiscriminacy. It's no more indiscriminate than, say, the Roman Catholic calendar of saints is. The argument that it does hinge upon is the reliability (in the long term) of the sources and thus whether it is possible to maintain an accurate article, as stated by Chris Neville-Smith below. Since at least one source has been republished annually, the question is whether these data are stable from year to year. Uncle G ( talk) 11:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply