[WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

[Anthony]

On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
> Anthony schreef:
> > On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at 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