And there's nothing wrong with that. The
problem is that GA lost sight
of
its original purpose very early on, and became a
mini-FA. I've had
decent
articles on subjects where not much can be
written because of lacking
sources rejected from GA - even in its first few months - and so I've
given
up completely on getting such articles recognised
as being "good
quality,
but can't really go anywhere because they
don't have sources or for some
other reason can't make FA". In the end, these articles cannot be
distinguished from the rest of the tripe that is normally on Wikipedia,
and
as such complicates things when, say, we want to
compile articles
illustrating the breadth of our coverage, since this practice
effectively
accentuates systemic bias.
If there really aren't any reliable sources available, then the
article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, since it is OR. Such articles are
not what GA was invented for.
No, I mean articles like, say, [[Karamjit Singh]]. There aren't many (if
any) sources about his personal life - where he was born, where he went to
school, normal biographical stuff. So does this mean he should be excluded
from consideration for things like GA because he can't fulfill the normal
requirements of a biographical article?
I'm not talking about articles which don't have any sources at all. I'm
talking about articles which can source all the existing statements fine,
but can't be expanded because of lacunae in reliable sources. Should these
articles thus be disqualified from being marked as above the quality of a
typical article, when most of our articles don't even have sources for all
their statements, and we've become known for things like that illustrated in
the webcomic below?