On 10/2/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/2/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
short not enough references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_of_Wildlife_Trusts
short no references whatsoever
[etc]
Quite. All of these failings could be addressed in a five-day AfD-like process where 100 articles are listed at random and either improved to presentable standard or, if consensus exists to reject, marked as in need of attention.
There are many, many articles that are nearly ready for the main page; a process that produced more than 100 featurable articles per day would be feasible and would probably be a better use of the copious resources expended on AfD.
Afd is unnecessary. Hoax articles and other unverifiable stuff could be listed and processed in a WP:CP-like system. Verifiability should be added to the key policies of Wikipedia to facilitate this. An unverifable article should not be retained on Wikipedia no matter how many people vote for its retention.