Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion process for unsourced articles

message: This is slightly more palatable than the original, but my same concern applies - why won't this encourage false sourcing?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also encourages lazy people to use deletion as a tool to force clean-up. If something is unsources, try to source it. Only try to delete if it proves unverifiable.--Docg 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone is routinely falsely sourcing, they'll eventually get caught (especially with Google Print and Amazon's preview features, it's easy to find out if an offline source actually exists and says what they say it says). Knowingly providing false sources should be a block for hoaxing, whether or not we implement this proposal. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If an article is created the way it should be, sourcing should be a trivial matter. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial thoughts

message: People can already use , so what additional value does this add?  A category, perhaps, but we already have :Category:Articles lacking sources. Friday (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but you can remove a prod for that without providing sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but if something's prodded for having no sources, it's unhelpful in the extreme to unprod without sourcing it.  No responsible editor would do that.  Friday (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone using  should be blocked for vandalism. If it lacks sources - then bloody well try to source it. If you can't then , will be quite acceptable.--Docg 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's not overstate the case.  Many people prodding for no sources probably really mean "I think this is unverifiable", they're just not saying what they mean in very exact terms.  I speedy delete unsourced stuff all the time for lack of verifiability, and I'm sure many others do too.  But, yes, the difference between "this is not verified right now" and "this is not verifiable" is important.  Friday (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are possible right, but the distinction is very important, and I've seen too many debates recently where someone hasn't even done a basic google and simply points to WP:V and says 'the onus is on the one wishing to keep it to source it' - well, sorry, that's not good enough. The distinction between unverifiable and currently unverified is vital. I'm sure all the stuff you've deleted is not simply on the grounds of it not being sourced, there will always have been more to it than that.--Docg 22:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, by calling something currently unverified, but not unverifiable, we're just asserting that proper sources exist but haven't yet been found.  This is generally fine in the short term, but if enough time goes by and nobody has yet found sources, its not unreasonable to say "this is unverifiable".  Friday (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't like things hanging about 'just in case a source turns up'. However, anyone saying "this seems unverifiable", should at least have made a rudimentary attempt to verify it and failed. I'm content that once someone has made a determined stab at verification and not succeeded, then the onus does fall on anyone who thinks the thing should be kept to source it.--Docg 23:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever I prod or AfD for lack of sources, I make sure to make clear what I've already tried to find sources (running the name through Google/Google Print/Google Scholar, and if it looks reasonable I'll usually give it a run through Proquest too). I tried to specify in this that it should not just be used because an article lacks sources, but that before tagging someone should do at least a reasonable search. I'll try to clarify that here. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just keep the distinction between 'currently unverified' and 'apparently unverifiable' clear, the later are quite properly nominated for deletion.--Docg 23:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prod already does this? 

message: ...because it's a simple rehash of whichever version of the old proposal. That's already been rejected (principally for being too draconian); I don't see what is different about this proposal. Add a tag, delete in 14 days. No different. This has already been rejected. 86.148.127.202 13:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that the old proposal was about speedy deleting unsourced articles, whereas this proposal isn't.Hut 8.5 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was always 14 days. It just used the word 'speedy' as that is the terminology that comes easily to mind. 86.148.127.202 15:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy deletion is completely different from proposed deletion, and a lot of the objections on the old proposal were because of the speedy deletion component, so the old decision does not apply. Hut 8.5 20:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy is very different to prod, yes, but in the opening lines of the old proposal, it refers to 14 days. The old proposal was never speedy is the usual sense of WP:CSD, and at least one of the mechanisms suggested there (i.e. the first one!) is essentially identical to this proposal. In any case, the principal objections to that proposal were that deletion is not the broadly-desired solution, and that instead of burning our way through articles (because that's decidedly easier), we should be trying to source them. The same criticisms apply here; and there is clearly no consensual agreement that the actual basis of either the old or new proposals is a basis that is to be proceeded upon. 86.148.127.202 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The old proposal went through many revisions and evolutions.  At its start, it did say speedy-deletion.  The modification to 14 days came much later.  While the proposal remained contentious, this new proposal was intended to give the idea a fresh start - clean from the early objections which were based on the original speedy-language.  Rossami (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually suggested at the old proposal that a new one should be made, to give a "fresh start" to the discussion. By the end of the discussion, the name of the proposal ("speedy deletion") didn't even match what was being proposed, and the whole thing was a confused mess. Basically, there wasn't a single proposal that got rejected there-the whole thing basically turned into a train wreck, as the thing got changed and old comments didn't even apply to what was there anymore. This seemed the most reasonable and least bureaucratic of the various things that got suggested there. And yes, of course, it's taken from one idea there that did seem to have pretty widespread support-the whole point of leaving rejected proposals around is so that we can learn from them! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...and anyway this is already rejected 

message: Would it be possible to achieve this result by altering the existing WP:PROD policy? This would require two principle changes
*the introduction of templates giving standard reasons, in the same way we have , we could have ,
*modification of WP:PROD, such that removal of the prod template is only valid if the stated reason has been complied with.
The first stage, creating , could possibly happen now. Addhoc 14:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on the back of a rejected proposal, no. If a broadly-agreed-to proposal can be formulated, then of course that's entirely different. But those proposals for which people have gone out and stuck their template on articles before it has reached such a state are those that generally cause the most upset and get dismantled the fastest. (Plus, what you suggest is identical to the main idea here, so I don't see it as an alternative route). 86.148.127.202 15:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's different in that it can be an extension of the existing WP:PROD policy rather than a new policy. Hut 8.5 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same difference. New part of existing policy = new policy. 86.148.127.202 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I've explained this properly. I've created the  tag, which doesn't really involve any policy modification. After the template is substituted, its completely identical to a normal prod. Addhoc 16:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that new tag idea. Though, as of right now, anyone can remove it for any reason, still and yet-I think this could still be problematic. I've seen many times where people will deprod for no reason when an article is prodded for being unverifiable, and leave no reason. If asked, they'll either give WP:ILIKEIT, an "Include all X", or "There's got to be a source out there" (despite descriptions of the search efforts in the prod!). Of course, in no such cases does the person actually add a source. It would sure be nice if that could be made non-optional. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate route? 

message: m:User:Doc glasgow/seconding. A more comprehensive solution to ensure all new articles are checked by at least one experienced user.--Docg 15:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. That's a bit like m:Patrolled edit. 86.148.127.202 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cusotmers who bought this, might also be interested in.... 

message: I remain deeply concerned about the potential impact of this proposal on the culture of Wikipedia and on the volunteers that we get.  Some people have extensive academic experience with sourcing, footnoting and indexing and are very comfortable with the practice of explicit citations.  Most of our editors, however, are not from that background.  They are normal folks trying to improve the encyclopedia by adding what they know.  More than that, we have to remember that they are all volunteers.  As volunteers, we all have different skills and interests.  Some start stubs, some copy-edit existing articles, some add categorization tags, some patrol for vandalism, some wonk on policy pages and some add citations.  All of us have a place in the project.  Forcing us to do parts of the project that we don't enjoy is going to frustrate users and drive otherwise good contributors away from the project.  
Sourcing is important but using the threat of deletion as a sword over the head of every article (and by extension, every contributor) seems to me to be an over-reaction.  Some have said that a 14 day window is a reasonable grace period to ensure that articles are sourced.  I disagree.  Not every editor is as deeply addicted to the project as are the people commenting on this page.  Most of our editors read for a while, add an article in good faith and then get on with their lives, perhaps for months before coming back to see what's become of their contribution.
I also have concerns that if this policy is implemented aggressively, it will result in a pattern of fictitious citations.  Yes, doing so is an act of vandalism.  But so was adding the false content that drove the need for citation in the first place.  Bad editors are going to game the system no matter what rules you put in place.  Having a false citation in the article is far worse than having an article with no sources.  With no sources, the reader can make up his/her own mind about what and how much to trust the content.  Citations, especially print citations which can not be easily cross-checked, add the appearance of validity with no more confidence than we actually had in the original content.
If an article is unsourced and you have reason to be suspicious of the claims made in it, by all means, challenge them and if necessary pull them out.  But if the claims make sense, Wikipedia:assume good faith.
Wikipedia has been so successful in part because it has been able to successful capitalize on our diversity of skills and interests.  Locking us into a single mold - expecting every user to be as comfortable with footnoting as you are - is unreasonable and not a good thing for the project.  Rossami (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more concerned, realistically, with the effect not implementing something like this would have on the culture here. Many newer editors may not be familiar with many of our policies. They may want to write an article about their viewpoint on something or based on personal experience. But we don't let them do that, nor do we accord them "months" to come back and see if they fix it-AfD is only 5 days, and speedy can be under a minute. Yes, many people have many different areas of expertise, but there are some things we require of everyone. Verification is, and well should be, one of them. What we're saying right now is "We care about NPOV, but you know, we really don't care that much if you're putting up your own interpretations or garbage information. We're not going to ask that people show what they're saying actually is verifiable." WP:AGF doesn't apply. Someone might make a POV fork or vanity bio in good faith. That's fine. It's not getting deleted for bad faith. It's getting deleted because, good faith, bad faith, or ugly faith, it doesn't belong here. Neither do sourceless articles. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about cultural impact 

message: :Absolutely not. Terrible idea. We remove unverifiaABLE material. We don't remove something simply for being currently unsourced/unverifiED (except by WP:BLP), unless someone is challenging the veracity of the claim. If something is unsourced - don't nominate it for deletion - try to source it. If you can't then by all means nominate it as unverifiABLE. I'm sick of lazy people using deletion as a tool for clean up. Stop it.--Docg 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if I decide to level a blanket challenge?  Per WP:V, unsourced information may be removed by any editor at any time. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Questioning the veracity of a statement or an article for any other reason than that you think it might be untrue, with the aim to have the article deleted, is a blockable offence (WP:POINT). -- Eugène van der Pijll 10:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with the Doc. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, no, no, bad idea. —Doug Bell talk 14:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree with Doc. We really, really can't do this. This process will be horribly backlogged, and many worthwhile articles will be deleted because no online sources are available (or worse, all online sources are paid access that editors can't get to). Most unsourced content is either good or obviously false; this is not necessary. Just  and get over it. --N Shar 07:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't heard of such a guideline and I'd strongly argue against it. We should use the most reliable sources possible, regardless of how they are available. For most articles, the best sources are not available online. --Cherry blossom tree 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree. Online sources should never be considered to carry more weight then offline ones, nor should the reverse be true. If the source is reliable, it should count the same, period. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The -ed/-able debate is utterly pointless.  The easiest way to show something is verifiable is to actually verify it.  Wikipedia:Cleanup has a backlog of around 18 months.  Even with our slowest mirrors, that's not an acceptable timeframe.  It should be made clear at this point that the onus is, and always has been, on those seeking to add information to justify its existence (which is why in turn we require consensus for controversial deletions).  Chris cheese whine 09:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. What matters is whether something is true or not, not ticking boxes on form. Most of the good material on Wikipedia was added without sources. I doubt that Wikipedia would have succeeded if it has all been deleted on sight. CalJW 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, WP:V says the precise opposite - it matters not whether or not something is true, but whether it can be verified.  We can happily include information that is verifiably false, and point out that it is so.  Chris cheese whine 10:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree 100% with CalJW. Some people seem to treat the addition of unsourced material as a heinous crime, which is ridiculous. When I first started editing Wikipedia almost nothing was sourced and few people added references. If all that material is now deleted as unacceptable we are going to lose a hell of a lot of good material. I'm not saying that I don't agree with sourcing, incidentally, but I think there can now be too much of a mania for sourcing every little bit of information and too much of a mania for deleting period. -- Necrothesp 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On the whole offline sources are better, they are just less accessible. An ideal Wikipedia would use mainly offline sources. CalJW 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, I agree with CalJW. I've seen people claim an article should be deleted because it uses print sources and should only use online sources, on the basis that print sorces "can't be verified" by most users. There is absolutely no basis for this claim in Wikipedia policy, and it is frequently true that print sources are more detailed and more reliable. -- Necrothesp 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The WPV1.0/Project assessment scale prefers "hard" offline sources for articles of GA class and above where possible, also - a lot of online refs die or will die with page moves etc and not all are accessible via the Internet Wayback Machine; whereas the majority of print sources such as books, journals and newspapers have physical archives in large libraries such as the British Library; their life and usefulness for inclusion into an encyclopaedia is arguably longer. - Foxhill 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from the village pump 

message: Doc changed "It is a logical extension of this core policy [Wikipedia:Verifiability] that unsourced articles may also be challenged and, if no sources whatsoever are provided, removed" to "It is a logical extension of this core policy that unsourced articles may also be challenged and, if no sources whatsoever can be provided, removed." In my opinion, the first version is the logical extension of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, not the second. I think two weeks is ample time for at least one source to be provided. If not even one source is provided in those two weeks, it indicates to me that either reliable sources don't exist or that no one is interested enough in keeping the article to bother finding sources. Deleting a new, unsourced article does no harm to Wikipedia. If the subject deserves an article, there should be reliable sources available, and anyone who wants to keep the article needs to be responsible for citing those sources. I strongly disagree with the proposition that an editor proposing deletion is obligated to perform the search for sources that the creator and other editors who want to keep the article have not done. New editors who do not know about or understand our attribution requirements need to be educated about them. Editors who do know about the sourcing requirements, and continue to add unsourced information to Wikipedia are being lazy and rude to the rest of us. I already spend too damn much of my time trying to chase down sources for unsourced material. I thoroughly resent the implication that I am in the wrong when I nominate an article for deletion for lack of sources without having engaged in a major search for sources. The burden for finding sources is not on the editor who proposes deletion, it is one editors who want to keep the article. -- Donald Albury 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the burden for finding sources for an edit is on the user who makes that edit, and on the creation of an article the burden is on the user who creates it. Only the person who adds the edit can know their sources; other people can only guess. If the person who makes the edit isn't using sources, then it's original research. I've already pointed out on WT:CSDUA how easy it is to find sources for 'obvious' facts; so there isn't any good reason to make unsourced edits. We have to warn editors that their edits are unsourced and may be removed, and remove them if the sources aren't forthcoming, because nobody else will ever know for certain what the sources were, and the article will remain unverified and unverifiable for ever. For an edit to be verifiable, it has to be verified. --ais523 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, I often do search for sources to support an unsourced statement in an article, and I will edit the article if necessary to reflect the sources I found. I have helped save some article up for deletion this way. However, my objection is to the claim that I am obligated to search for sources before I can propose an article for deletion. -- Donald Albury 18:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burden of evidence 

message: I think this is well worth discussion. It could easily ease the concerns of both sides-the information is not lost, but isn't presented as an encyclopedia article either.
I see two ways we could work this:
*After 14 days tagged without a source, a user may move the unsourced article to the userspace of the principal contributor. The resulting redirect may be tagged for speedy deletion as a cross-namespace redirect. That contributor, and any other major contributors, will be informed of the article's new location on their talk pages, as well as what must be done (adding a source) before the article is moved back.
The advantages I see there are that the article is still out of mainspace, and if its editor(s) can source it, it can easily be moved back. This would remove it from the attention of others, but I believe we could solve that with a category such as :Category:Userfied unsourced articles, which anyone who wanted to help with sourcing could go through, and the cat could easily be added by the template placed on these userfied articles. (This would also allow defunct articles which no one has been able to source and the author has lost interest in to be periodically prodded.) The old page being deleted would also allow a direct move back from userspace once the article is sourced, preserving all article history.  The disadvantage is that it would cause redlinks in any article that's been linked to it, and would require an administrator to delete the redirect page (though not to userfy the page, as any established editor may perform a page move).
*Same as above, but a soft redirect explaining the situation is left in place of the article text, and the old mainspace location is not deleted entirely.
The advantages here are that this solution wouldn't require any additional administrative attention (users could perform the move and place the redirect template), and would leave blue links from incoming articles. However, this might be confusing to readers which follow those links, and wouldn't allow the moved article to be directly moved back, resulting in a GFDL issue from cut-and-paste moves back into mainspace (or eventually requiring admin attention anyway to delete the old page and perform it as a requested move). Also, these pages would have to be pruned pretty frequently so that mainspace wouldn't get crapped up with a lot of them.
Personally, I would prefer the first solution, but what does anyone else think? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair. With a good summary, it may usefully serve as a starting point in a year or so. At least a year (sigh).DGG 06:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Userfication

message: Given some of the recent shift in policy and how it is carried out, especially around unsourced articles that are under the purview of WP:BLP, it may be time to consider reviving and revising this policy. A rejected policy doesn't necessarily mean that it's rejected forever. ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, probably worthwhile. Also, in the case of articles that have been tagged as lacking sources for over a year, I would prefer if the prod tag could be reinstated unless the article is sourced. Addhoc 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is still on my watchlist. If someone wants to revive it, I'd be glad to help work out the details (I'm in support at the moment, but as it's quite vague so far I'm open to being persuaded otherwise). --ais523 11:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I suspect that a policy of this sort that is restricted to bios of living persons will receive stronger support. I'll play with a new version, see what I can come up with. -- Donald Albury 11:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was rather surprised to see a comment here. There seemed to be some support toward userfication rather than outright deletion, I'll see what I can do with that. Unsourced BLPs can already be speedied, generally speaking. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While unsourced BLPs are being speedied, being unsourced is only one factor, generally not the primary factor, being used to justify those deletions. Being unsourced has not been added to the explicit criteria for speedy deletions at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Due to the heightened risk of harming living persons due to unsourced or poorly sourced material about them in Wikipedia (per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons), I think we need to make it explicit that unsourced and poorly sourced bios of living persons can be speedy deleted, allowing recreation when and if notability (per WP standards) has been established and proper reliable sources are cited. -- Donald Albury 11:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so. ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Seraphimblade, I do not think that userification is the right approach for biographies, given how understanding of the issues behind BLP has improved. It may be for non biographical things (heck, I have some partly done things in my userspace that are poorly sourced, at best) but not for biographies due to the potential harm factor. ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Perhaps a split approach (place the tag, after X days, it's deleted if it's a BLP and userfied if it's not?) It also could be narrowed to apply only to BLPs, but I'm not sure that would make a tremendous difference. After 14 days, Google Cache and mirrors will have picked it up anyway. Perhaps a better approach would be to widen G10 to include any unsourced BLP or one which solely cites unreliable sources, and have this focus on non-BLP issues? Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. 14 days is a lot of time, unfortunately, when trying to keep things out of cache and out of mirrors. Widen G10, or a new G13... either would work for me. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to revive this?