Steven Walling wrote:
Now comes the
grotty quibbling over what "third party", "reliable" and
"article topic" mean, I guess. And whether the great purge to come will
give editors time to fix anything before it's swept aside.
Time? Why should you be creating new stubs that are unsourced at all? I
don't create an article unless I have source material available. It kills
the need for debate 90% of the time (literally, that's my ratio of creations
to AFDs).
The requirements just changed. Should editors have been looking into the
future when writing their stubs to take into account what the
requirements _would_ be at some point?
Wikipedia is a work in progress, a growing, living document that is
never "finished." The fact that it's riddled with half-complete,
poorly-referenced, and downright messy articles is a feature. It's
_supposed_ to be that way. If you want a nice printable version to put
on your shelves, don't go around shooting unfinished articles on sight.
Lean on the developers to finally get flagged revisions implemented.