[WikiEN-l] Proposed {{prod}} for articles with no sources

[Giggy]

The proposal only requires one source.  It doesn't take 30 days to find
that.  I seriously doubt that if this proposal goes ahead, any article that
actually passes [[WP:V]] will be deleted in it, because all of them will be
cited by someone who's watching them (at some stage)

On 7/18/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A friend who supports that proposal defended it to me earlier today,
> saying, that WP will be better for it 4 or 5 years down the road,
> after all the deleted articles have been rewritten and restored. My
> view remains that there are other encyclopedia to work on more suited
> to that attitude.
>
> Anyone can mark more unsourced articles in 30 minutes than a hundred
> people  could source properly in 30 days. (Of course, it is possible
> to put some sort of source into an article rather fast, if one accepts
> the outdated and the over-general.)  There is a great deal of
> questionable material in WP -- perhaps it would be wiser to source it
> first  --properly and carefully, article by article -- before entering
> into large scale campaigns to redo the whole thing.
>
> On 7/18/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
> > Please see:
> > [[Wikipedia:Requests for verification]]
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/ypmy36
> >
> > A proposal designed as a process similar to {{prod}} to delete
> > articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.
> >
> > It reads:
> >
> > " It has been suggested that this article might not meet Wikipedias's
> > core content policies Verifiability and/or No original research. If
> > references are not cited within a month, the disputed information
> > will be removed.
> >
> > If you can address this concern by sourcing please edit this page and
> > do so. You may remove this message if you reference the article.
> >
> > The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 30
> > days. (This template was added: XXX XX 2007.)
> >
> > If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead,
> > improve the article so that it is acceptable according to
> > Verifiability and/or No original research."
> >
> > Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole
> > and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others ( me
> > included) see this as a negative thing for the project with the
> > potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.
> >
> > I would encourage your comments in that page's talk.
> >
> >
> > -- Jossi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>