On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Anthony schreef:
On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its creators. One of those is even a book.
However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD. In that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.
In another thread, Jeff Raymond wrote (about [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles]]):
"The chance of that gaining consensus are next to nil."
Nevertheless, this example shows that there are a number of people who already seem to follow WP:CSDUA.
Maybe, but [[WP:SOFTWARE]] is much much harsher than [[WP:CSDUA]]. Requiring a single source which shows that something definitely exists is one thing. Requiring that thing *to be the subject of* multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself is yet another.
I really wouldn't have a problem with WP:CSDUA, in any of the proposed forms, which entail either a 14 day waiting period in which *anyone* can add a single source, or a mere moving of the article somewhere else as opposed to outright deletion (where non-admins can't see the article any more). While at it it would be nice to have a mandatory freeform field required for new article creation where the creator can type in a source. But that's not what this speedy deletion criterion is apparently being interpreted to mean.
Anthony