" 

 :::Fair enough.  The thing that gets me, though, is that there are billions of people in the world, including at least millions of English speakers, and from this large pool of humans, we have new editors joining practically every minute (see Special:Log/newusers) as well as potential future Wikipedians born every minute.  Considering that Wikipedia ia a work in progress, Wikipedia is timeless, and there is no deadline, I cannot understand why the ""encyclopedia that anyone can edit"" that is ""the sum total of human knowledge"" and that ""is not a paper encyclopedia"" but ""contains elements of general enyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs"" should be limited in the selective manner that some push for when the argument I see by some in AfDs that these articles can ""never"" be improved seems counter to reality.  While I may disagree with you on occasion, or with sgeureka, you two as well as a few others have demonstrated a willingness to be open-minded and reasonable, as evident in this discussion.  By contrast, in that same discussion and so many others, TTN and Eusebeus either ignore the efforts made to improve the article or make personal attacks against those who attempt to rescue the article.  Thus, it is increasingly apparent that their real issues with the article are not about sourcing or style, but just a dislike or disdain for the topics, even when references have been found and editors have demonstrated a willingness to improve and work on the articles.  And so they just pepper AfDs with the same copy and paste ""delete as cruft/crap"" insulting non-arguments while making limited efforts to improve articles instead of allowing editors who are willing able to improve those articles to do so and instead of say focusing on bringing more articles that they do like to GA or FA status.  If I have been able to argue to delete over a dozen articles in the past few months, it would be nice to see some of these others be willing to argue to keep at least some articles or at least not devote their efforts to stifling the ability of others to in fact reference and improve articles.  Again, some have demonstrated objectivity and good faith in their efforts to clean articles up; but others have done little more than in effect disrupt our project by being incivil with editors and by acting as if deleting material is some kind of ""mission.""  Sincerely, '''' "