Bryan Derksen wrote:
IMO this is a bad idea. It's going to result in bad references being inserted simply to stave off deletion, it's going to result in good articles being deleted because nobody happened to be paying attention at the particular moment they were marked for deletion or because a library is required for sourcing, and it's going to result in people (such as myself) avoiding using {{fact}} or {{unreferenced}} tags because it'd draw unwanted consequences. When I put {{fact}} on something it's because I'd like to see a reference added, not because I want the article deleted.
Why is there this need for a hard and fast deadline? Wikipedia's been doing fine without one, it's got plenty of heavily-referenced articles already.
The problem is not just hard and fast deadlines; it's also about an inability to distinguish between deleting a few words and a whole article.
I stuck a {{fact)) tag in the Madonna article because of an internal inconsistency; the article said she was the third of six children then proceeded to list seven of which the third had a male name. I fully expected that someone more familiar with the subject would come along and fix that, and it happened. I don't expect any drastic action with that kind of thing. To me a collaborative project is about people being helpful with these little problems, not about finding excuses for savaging the work of others.
Ec