Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geographic.org
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
— User:Mike, 09:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BEFORE (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)