On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 21:52:39 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
As I anticipated, the only reason the article was deleted was a lack of sources. That's perfectly fine.
What's not perfectly fine is how lazy people are when it comes to looking for sources. I often see quotations tagged with {{fact}} that have sources readily available on Google
There is nothing that says anyone is compelled to go and look for sources if the original author can't be bothered to do it themselves. Tagging with {{fact}} or {{unreferenced}} is reasonable, the person tagging may be completely unfamiliar with the subject and the authors of the article will be in a much better position to provide not just any old reference but a good, authoritative one.
Some editors - Uncle G springs to mind - specialise in rescuing crap articles on good subjects. Some specialise in identifying the crap articles. Some specialise in Wikignoming. There is room for all sorts.
Guy (JzG)