John Lee wrote:
On 10/29/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Oct 28, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
Those "Hey, I'll start a one-para article on something I know" are
generally just as bad or worse, and harder to remove.
I'm missing, I think, why this is bad.
-Phil
No sources, half the time ("half" being probably an underestimation) on very, very borderline subjects that -just- duck speedy to start with, usually most of what's there is wrong (because it's pulled from memory, not sources), etc.
Is it your position that having no sources should constitute a criterion for speedy deletion?
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Maybe not speedy. But they certainly shouldn't be allowed to stick around indefinitely either. My idea was a PROD-like system specifically for sourceless articles, under which one can remove the prod by adding a minimum of one relevant source. We pay lip service to sourcing, but we don't -enforce- it. It's a bit like saying "Really, vandalizing is bad, we mean it, don't do that", but then never actually blocking anyone for vandalism. In the same vein, we should either do away with the source requirement, or enforce it by -actually- removing unsourced content. Bet you can guess which I would like to see.
(As an aside, if we implemented a system like that, I'd be all for anon page creation, especially since we seem to have plenty of newpage patrollers right now.)