[WikiEN-l] "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources will be deleted."

[Cheney Shill]

--- Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

> Cheney Shill wrote:
> > Why not just start applying the policy?  Set a time
> limit. 
> > No RS, delete.
> ...
> > It seems like there has been an extended and unstated
> > policy to create essentially article shells simply to
> get
> > the article count up and increase Wikipedia's
> popularity.
> 
> I've created my share of stubs and this is not even
> remotely the reason
> why. In most cases it's because I went looking for an
> article, didn't
> find it, and wanted to get it started so that hopefully
> others would add
> more detail. Why should I care about Wikipedia's gross
> article count?
> 
> Assume good faith, please.

OK.  AGF.  The stubs went nowhere.  It's not your falt.  It
may have even scared others away.  You tried, nothing
happened.  Time to let it go and AGF upon those deleting
it.
 
> > WP has a high enough count and popularity.  Why not
> start
> > actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the
> long
> > standing yet rarely applied policies?
> 
> [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is not policy.

Problem is, under the scenario given, othing is verifiable
supports the articles.  That makes it a violation of
verifiablity, regardless of what guidelines you prefer, but
WP:V does just happens to mention reliable sources in its
1st sentence.  It's also a violation of original research
because there's nothing to show otherwise.  Let's not
forget NPOV, which states at the very top "... significant
views that have been published by a reliable source."

There's nothing stated in any policy or guideline about
giving stubs long-term policy exception status.

> > of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like
> that
> > on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it
> > has.
> 
> That's a false dilemma.

It's original research, I'll grant you that.  Nonetheless,
the jokes and increased publicity and stature thereof are
verifiable.


~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick 
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)


--spam may follow--


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com