I would support making it a requirement before taking any article to
AfD on the basis of lack of references to first make a bona fide
appropriate search for them, and to say so--this is already
recommended at [[WP:BEFORE]]
That way, the people who want to remove presently unsourced articles
would improve the encyclopedia in two ways simultaneously first, by
getting unsourceable articles deleted, and second, by getting
sourceable ones sourced. They are equal priorities.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:55 PM, stevertigo<stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew Turvey<andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
Clearly whether we allow "deletion on
sight" or require proposers to improve articles first makes a big difference to
whether this backlog will ever be cleared.
A couple ideas:
1) "Delete on sight" is unwiki, and violates several of our core
policies that supercede BLP including NPOV and CIVIL and their
subordinates. "Speedy" concepts also tend to promote uncivil behavior,
such that people occasionally will do things like not read what they
want to delete ([[WP:MFD/SV/ONS]]), and try to close ongoing MFD's
([[WP:DRV/SV/ONS]]) and even ANI's ([[WP:RFAR/DPP]]).
2) As far as getting backlogs cleared up, we have a large number of
people coming through the penal system (misnamed "Arbitration," for
some reason) who may choose to do work as part of the agreeable
remedy. In fact, if Arbcom starts shaping up in accord with the
dynamics of creativity and invention, such as in some imaginary
scenario wherein they were free to interact and act autonomously, then
it will be fairly easy for the community, through them, to get people
to work on the menial tasks that others like myself just will not do.
-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l