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