On 6/11/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/11/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
What about the people who WANT to fix articles like that like the
person
who started this thread. We have cleanup processes. No one asked if someone wanted to fix it. They just played the numbers game. It's not the
amount
of Google hits that count.
I tend to agree with this, in that my standards for what is a useful starting point are lower than most.
But if something really has no sources at all, does having anything
really
help someone who wants to "fix" it? I do feel there's a minimum level
of
effort a contributor should make in order for an article to be kept.
Articles usually lack sources because the creators are clueless newbies. That doesn't mean there aren't any or that the subject isn't suitable.
Absolutely. But just because a subject is suitable doesn't mean we should keep any article on that subject. My standards are low as to what I think is " beneficial to the job of writing an encyclopedia", but they're not nonexistent.
If all an article contributes to the encyclopedia is the fact that its subject exists, [[Wikipedia:Requested_articles]] is a more appropriate location.