Steven Walling wrote:
Now comes the grotty quibbling over what "third party", "reliable" and "article topic" mean, I guess. And whether the great purge to come will give editors time to fix anything before it's swept aside.
Time? Why should you be creating new stubs that are unsourced at all? I don't create an article unless I have source material available. It kills the need for debate 90% of the time (literally, that's my ratio of creations to AFDs).
The requirements just changed. Should editors have been looking into the future when writing their stubs to take into account what the requirements _would_ be at some point?
Wikipedia is a work in progress, a growing, living document that is never "finished." The fact that it's riddled with half-complete, poorly-referenced, and downright messy articles is a feature. It's _supposed_ to be that way. If you want a nice printable version to put on your shelves, don't go around shooting unfinished articles on sight. Lean on the developers to finally get flagged revisions implemented.