Deletion of Geographic.org

Comment: per . To verify that these settlements exist, and thus that the articles are appropriate, each needs to be sourced to a reliable source. I'm not entirely opposed to incubation, but I think it would be better if we wrote articles on each village when sources appear
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: unencyclopedic entries, without prejudice to re-creation subject to  etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This is a reckless approach to deletion and in my view sets a dangerous precedent.  We don’t delete articles because a particular source is deemed un-reliable, we delete articles because there are no reliable sources to support notability of the article topic.  In this case, even the nom admits that many of these geo-locations are valid and warrant articles.  Nom didn’t get the results wanted in this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Geographic.org, but still choses to uni-laterally declare that geographic.org is unreliable.  On an article by article basis, there may be instances where geographic.org is not a reliable source and/or contains significant content errors and no other sources exist to support notability of the article topic.  However, if more recent or reliable data sources are available to support notability and content (must be available if errors in geographic.org can be validated), they should be used in the article.  Unless  is applied to each of these articles, we run the risk of creating a new and dangerous deletion tactic--find a way to discredit a source and then nominate all the articles that use that source for deletion.  Categorical deletion as is being proposed here is a really poor approach to improving the encyclopedia.  All that said, I do believe there should be more engagement with the creator of these articles to get the sourcing correct on an article by article basis
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: per nom. The proliferation of unsourced and ridiculously "sourced" mass-created substubs is a blight on Wikipedia that must be halted. The creation of an article should be a thoughtful exercise by a human being who is ''guided'' and ''informed'' by reliable sources, exercising human judgment and intelligence, not a database dump or a mindless robotic task (even if no bot is actually involved).  is often used as a stick with which to beat folk nominating articles for deletion—where's the stick that's needed for people who create basically useless articles without sufficient forethought
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Nominator's argument is compelling.  fail and no other sources => delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)