Usually people tend to quote sources rather to prove accuracy, rather than just add the word "fact". In professional circles anyway.
Lots of people are in favour of sprinklers. Consultants, building owners, governments, local authorities, educational authorities. Fire authorities have a limited remit - they only care about safety. It is not their role to care about protection of assets, business, reputation, the emotional effects of a fire, the effect it would have on a business or child's education.
Most fire (99%) are indeed controlled by the sprinklers alone (
http://www.bafsa.org.uk/facts.html)
You can indeed get water damage. The same is true of fire fighting. The later comes with a lot more water damage. So you could also argue that there is a lot of limitations of fire fighting. But I don't suppose you'd be suggesting we don't fight fires. Once there is a fire, it tends to be FIRE damage that people tend to be most concearned about.
If a sprinkler head cannot reach a fire, then there is probably a design flaw. But to NOT put them in would surely mean a sprinkler head would not reach the fire, so I'm not bowled over by this argument.
There are companies who put in sprinklers that are not 3rd party accredited? If so, then avoid them. But there are people who might sell dodgy fire extingiushers. Does it mean we should dismiss fire extinguishers are all bad? I suggest not. I suggest we use the same rule for sprinklers then.
You are just saying be careful? That would be good advice. But it is not just what you were saying. You were saying what we can all read you actually said which was a pretty weak argument, in my personal opinion.
