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?
http://www.wondermark.com/d/291.html
Ah, now I understand. I've had similar problems with articles about
fictional works - the people at FAC want more stuff about the work's
place in the real world rather than just stuff about the fictional
world and such information often isn't published anywhere. Such
articles should be able to be featured. The policy says the featured
article director should ignore complaints that can't be fixed - that
policy should be followed and often isn't.