[WikiEN-l] 17,268 badly referenced living biographies

[Thomas Dalton]

> I think the problem is that people want to remove it for some reason that
> has nothing to do with lack of sources.  The sources are just an excuse.
> So when a source finally turns up, they have to grasp at straws for a
> reason to discount it.
>
> It's the same reason we have dozens of sourced Pokemon articles: people who
> don't like Pokemon articles tried to remove them by demanding sources.  You
> try that and all you get is sourced Pokemon articles.
>
> And though this doesn't work for Neil Gaiman or Pokemon, in most other places
> it's very effective, which is why it keeps happening to begin with.  Demanding
> sources is too convenient.

It boils down to the burden of proof that the article should exist is
on the people that want to keep it, not those that want to delete it.
I don't know is that's desirable or not, but it seems to be the way it
works.