Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles/Archive 1

message: I think that in general this is both a good idea and a good precident, but I would like to see it require a tag be in place for some period of time, similar to how we do with prod, only removing the tag without correcting the problem would be prohibited. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Triona|Triona]]

message: Mmm, I have mixed feelings about this. Referencing is clearly an ultra-major problem (as User:Worldtraveller stated on his user page) and I'm all for dealing with unreferenced articles, deleting them if necessary. 
However, what bothers me is a very vague definition of reliable sources. An outstanding amount of work is needed to get these world mean something precise. For instance, I never write an article without adding links to places I got information from, as it is a basic principle of WP:V. However, what is a "reliable" source? How do I know that. And on some things, there are no "reliable" sources in an academic way. BZflag, for instance, used to be an FA, yet by definition, it only has links to online forums and stuff? Should we delete it? Heck no.
In short, a lot of discussion and caution should imho be applied :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, once references are added, their reliability would have to be judged at AfD for wider exposure.  (Trying to make this like images.  Images with no source or copyright info are CSD, while images with possibly defective copyright claims are IfD'd.)  Suggest the same procedure here.  No references=delete+14; any reference=keep or AfD. Thatcher131 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, a lot of new articles are created hit-and-run by editors who never show up again.  Editors who stick around, even newbies, should have no problem with this.  However, we must be especially careful not to bite newbies; the RCP is already pretty rough on first articles. Thatcher131 18:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The intention is to skirt the whole problem of reliable sources or not. That is a gray area, and a content dcision that should be worked out by the article's editors. However, any CSD-patrolling admin can objectively distinguish between an article with no sources and one with them. Dmcdevit·t 19:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  100% agree on that one. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Amazingly good idea, I'd give you a barnstar for it if you'd not already got one. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Grafikm_fr|Grafikm]] 

message: This is one of the things that WP:PROD and WP:AFD are for.  Those processes give the author and other interested parties a chance to correct the problem (which they may not have appreciated was a problem).  By contrast speedy is intended to deal with urgent problems, while in most cases unreferenced content is not an urgent problem.  Dragons flight 05:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Dragons flight]] 

message: My initial reaction is positive.  We have been tightening up our standards here for a while now, with regard to things like WP:BLP, WP:CITE, WP:RS, to the point that most of the articles as they were three years ago would just not be acceptable to most of us now.  This CSD addition is another step towards overall reliability.  As a side note, if you take something to AFD just because it has no references, the probability of its being either deleted, or repaired with addition of references, is not all that high.  You are likely to get lots of "no consensus to delete" unreferenced articles flooding through.  I personally trust a CSD on this more than AFD.  
As long as there is sufficient time given for referencing, I like this proposal.  Antandrus  (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Antandrus]]

message: I support this, with the addition of the tagging and wait period (currently tag and wait 14 days). It seems to me there may be objections that this is too much like Prod; thus perhaps the difference - that sourcing is required, not merely protest - should be more emphasized. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:KillerChihuahua]]

message: My opinion is that Wikipedia needs to be pragmatic at this point. Sure, if we enact this rule, Wikipedia will lose some of it's important additions because they were unreferenced. So, yes, we loose some potential content and contributors. But, what we get is that in another few months when we reach 2 million articles, we will have half a million new referenced articles. Maybe poorly referenced, but we will have a starting point. Which of the two is more valuable for a encyclopaedia?  
I have seen a lot of plain text articles which are probably copyvio just copy/pasted into Wikipedia (I've just checked the newly created pages: of 10 new pages 3 were unwikified, unsourced plain text). Sure, even this articles have potential. But, after having 1.5 million articles, do we desperately need those? Or do we desperately need referencing?
Sure, some of the contributors might try to game the system. But, it's not like the system is not open for gaming at this moment. And, we do not see all that much of gaming. Sure, it happens once in a while. But not all that often (at least from my perspective). I do not see why this rule would be an exception. We'll get some false references. But, again, we gain (1 - some/all)*100% of (poorly or not) referenced stub articles.
Some newbies might decide to leave Wikipedia feeling bitten by this rule. But, again, it's not like we don't have AfD or prod or copyvio to bite newbies... this new rule will be just one more on the list.
So, these are the potential drawbacks of the rule. Potential gain form this rule is a complete shift of perspective. I think that Wikipedians need to start referencing their articles. Not just new ones, but the old ones too. When people create a new articles, they always think of wikilinks, of categories and of wikifying. If a semiexpirienced contributor encounters plain text article, he will wikify it, categorise it and add wikilinks. We have to change a state of mind of Wikipedians to accept referencing as another thing you routinely do to articles. And, I feel that this rule is a an excellent way to start. --Dijxtra 11:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a great point about the balance and this being in the right direction for the right reasons. I've said for a long time, we don't need just any material anymore, we need good material with references. I'm not sure we could get this through, but it is well worth a shot. It fits well with Jimbo's desire to improve articles over adding new ones. - Taxman Talk 04:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Dijxtra|Dijxtra]] 

message: Yes! We need this. We really need to change the culture on sourcing, and this would be a good tool for doing that. One problem with 'prod' is that anyone can remove the tag and the only choice then is AfD or tagging as needing citations. We all know how AfDs go, and we have editors that are insistent on removing requests for citations without providing any, or who insist on putting back material that was deleted because it was unsourced. This proposal will hopefully be a tool for educating editors on the need for good sourcing. -- Donald Albury 12:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Dalbury 

message: Fantastic idea.  One dumb question: is this going to stop at requiring sources which prove accuracy?  Or is it going to require sources which prove notability?  One of the most common new article types I see are for local companies, etc. which include a link to the subject's web site.  One could make a case that the article is sourced and probably accurate but it doesn't go anywhere to demonstrating notability (i.e., no secondary sources).  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Wknight94|Wknight94]] 

message: Good idea but the devil is in the details. If I put up a big unsourced article, but add one source for one small part of it, have I dodged this criterion? It's got "a source" even if most of it is not sourced. What about if half the stuff in it is sourced? Judgement will be required, and what I like about speedies is that for the most part they are cut and dried. Good idea though. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good bare minumum, though. Once judgment  is required, when a source is questionable or the total sourcing is small, then we'll have to deal with it as we do now. But this at least, is a useful addition to the effort. Dmcdevit·t 20:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Lar|Lar]] 

message: An important part of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy
An article is only deletable for being unverifiable if both of the following conditions hold:
*The article cites no (supporting) sources at all.
*Reasonable searches for sources on the parts of several editors turn up no sources.
This is for historical reasons.
Yes, lack of references is viewed as a cleanup issue at AFD.  This is in part because although we do have an expanding culture of strong sourcing now, we have several years' worth of articles to deal with that were created when we had no strong sourcing culture at all, and articles being created now by editors of long standing who have become accustomed to never being required to cite sources.  If we had had a culture of strong sourcing all along, as Wikinews has, then the fact that an article cited no sources could be used by itself as a deletion criterion.  But we have to deal with the legacy of not having that culture, which means that it is incumbent upon editors at AFD to check, using a range of search tools, that there are in fact no sources.  "Fails WP:V" cannot be synonymous with "cites no sources".But that doesn't mean that one cannot get unsourced articles deleted via AFD.  It is simply necessary to show that the second condition also holds.  It is necessary that editors show that, in addition to just reading the article, they themselves went looking for sources and couldn't find any.  In other words: It is necessary that nominators and other contributors do the research.We in fact came close to this proposed criterion for speedy deletion for one class of article with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2.  That was based not upon whether a biographical article "asserts notability" but whether it contains any source citations.  The basis for that was very much the same argument as put forward above.  An administrator can far more easily determine from the article content alone whether an article cites any sources than xe can determine whether an article asserts notability in whatever field the person may be involved.Ironically, with the later adoption of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people as an official policy, allowing for the speedy deletion of "biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to" then if one substitutes the (ironically more widely encompassing) qualification of "currently alive" for the (ironically narrower) qualification of "not provably born more than 25 years ago" the aforementioned proposal is effectively a de facto speedy deletion criterion (it already being a requirement in all speedy deletions to check the article history for prior good versions).Although lack of references is not by itself a reason for deletion, it is definitely a reason for not creating articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation.  So we've already introduced strong sourcing into article creation.On the subject of biting newbies, I suggest that always handing out to newbies advice such as User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Always_work_from_and_cite_sources, which explains how if one cites sources one avoids a range of difficulties, from questions of notability to unstable content, works when handed out to the kind of editors that are going to benefit Wikipedia.  I most recently gave this advice to , for example.  Xe went through many of xyr past articles, and they now have references and should remain far more stable against major content fluctuations and proof against nomination for deletion.Similarly, liberal, and insistent, use of the  notice works.  See Template talk:Unreferenced#Effect_when_used_by_New_Page_Patrol.  Uncle G 16:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of references as a cleanup and deletion issue 

message: When considering a new CSD it is worth wondering how it will be misapplied, for it surely will be. It might go something like this: X writes a shortish article, and does not include any sources for they do not know they should. In short order, the obligatory tag (presumably pink, black, bold, italic, blue, linked, uppy-downy linky, block-for-removing, red-octagonal stop hand tag) is applied. Huh, they think, and copypaste a link from e.g. a Google search on the end of a sentence somewhere, but leave the tag. Eventually, this minor article passes the 14th day guillotine and an admin, largely ignorant in the field of the topic comes along. Sees the link, sees that it is with reasonable probability a link to a forum, blog etc. Decides that is unreliable, and by a misguided application of the new WP:CSD and (when asked for reasoning) WP:IAR, deletes it. Hmmmmmm. It's not long before there is a de facto "...and the source must be reliable" clause in the policy, in a twistedly descriptivist way.
This entirely plausible scenario has to be balanced against the principles of the thing. Wikipedia articles are little use to a reader without their sources (even if the reader is unlikely to check the sources if they just want a quick answer). Is it really true that no article is better than one without a source? Or was that just Jimbo on the mailing list doing what he does on the mailing list? I suppose this relies on the assumption that in some sense Wikipedia probably has most all the articles it ought to have (it really doesn't, though, particularly in specialist areas) and that we can therefore justify the removal, rather than the editing of poor work. I'm personally not sure that I'm persuaded of that balance yet.
Extent: some things don't need references. 1+1=2 doesn't, and neither does the entirely less obvious \int x \,dx = x^2/2 +c. (WP:V used to be congnisant of the point but has been masticated to pieces.) It is entirely possible that an entire shortish article could be written out of facts that are fundamental to a field and really only need a section for a "bibilography" rather than a set of references for things like "grass is green". Is the argument then that we already have all, or nearly all, the articles like that?
In short, I haven't made up my mind on this yet, but I really want to stress that is vitally important to consider factors relating to the benign ignorance of many editors, old and new, and to consider that the success of this project is due, at a fundamental level, to the very low bar to lending a hand. Every raising of that bar should be done with caution aforethought. And not, in the tone of some comments on this talk page, in the mindset of knowing better already because we benefitted from that same low bar to entry. Splash - tk 23:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practise, principle and extent 

message: Given Jimbo's request that we focus on quality rather than quantity, I believe this is a good idea. It shouldn't be too hard for the creator of any article to find a single source somewhere. Personally I would remove the grandfather clause, because it's overly judicial and it's already covered by the fact that a page must be found and tagged, and because I'd prefer not to get people arguing that something was "out of process" when its intent was clear. 
However, there has been a recent controversy at WP:RS debating what exactly constitutes a "reliable" source, and there has been discussion at the new WP:ATT about how articles about fiction can be attributed. I think therefore that it's wise to make clear in this criterion that any reference counts, and that AFD must be used if it is disputed whether a reference is reliable - just like for A7, any assertion counts, and disputed assertions are thrown on AFD. (Radiant) 09:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the issue of reliability should be skirted entirely. Aside from the ambiguity of the concept, I'm also wary of giving admins the authority to make deletions based on content judgments of source reliability. Admins have extra tools, but no more power when it comes to content decisions. Dmcdevit·t 10:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: See also WT:CSD#Suggested BLP Criterion. (Radiant) 11:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed with Dmcdevit on this point (and I wholeheartedly endorse the proposal as written). We already have mechanisms for dealing with sources which may or may not be reliable. A lack of sources is never reliable. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. That keeps it simple and clear. This proposal is not a cure-all, but it should make the job of getting Wikipedia properly sourced a little easier. -- Donald Albury 14:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Radiant, a good idea and in due course the grandfather clause should be removed. Addhoc 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Radiant 

message: Ignorant of this proposal, I proposed something of the sort for the specific case of articles about living persons.  While the current BLP phrasing allows obviously defamatory articles to be deleted, any unsourced biographical information can be harmful.  In biographies, we use unverifiability as a proxy for determining what information is private.  If it has been published in a reliable source, we use it on the grounds that it has been vetted for both truth and privacy concerns.
Consider a few examples.  Assume in each case a colorable claim of notability, thereby evading CSD-A7 as a reason to delete.  The harmful information in each case has no reliable source, either because it is not true, or because the subject has successfully kept the matter private.
#A GLBT activist is biographied without source as an  "Active volunteer for the Family Values Coalition."  The assertion is not prima facie defamatory, as the FVC has many proud volunteers, yet the subject would rightly regard the falsehood as harmful.
#An attorney, not a public person, worked her way through college as a stripper.  In the absence of evidence that she performed illegal acts, this is not a crime, and it can be argued is not defamatory.  Nevertheless, she reasonably feels that this information would scare off certain clients.
#An unmarried man is biographied as married.  The assertion is not defamatory, but I think everyone would understand the potential for inconvenience.
#Person X has a biography that lays claim to the actual accomplishments of person Y.  Person Y has been harmed without even being mentioned.
I don't have evidence that Wikipedia is being used for mischief.  I know without a doubt that it is being used for self-aggrandizement, which is just the flip side of the same impulse, and in the last example is itself harmful to a living person.  If we want to apply this policy gradually, we could quite sensibly apply it to bios first.
That said, I am heartily sick of seeing AFD votes, "Keep.  All this needs is a reliable source, which I am sure must exist."  The person with the best clue where to find a source -- if one actually exists -- is usually long gone.
Whatever we do in this regard should generate a warning when creating new articles.  "Articles with no sources may be deleted.  Articles with unsourced defamatory content may be deleted without warning."  Robert A.West (Talk) 15:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Robert A West]] 

message: Just highlighting what Radiant noted above, discussion of this is now basically live on the criteria for speedy deltion talk page. Might as well take care of it now and keep it in one place there. - Taxman Talk 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this page should be moved to a Wikipedia space page, where there can be more directed comment from the entire community. The CSD talk page, at any rate, seems to be contemplating the idea of such a proposal, without ddressing an actual proposal. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd think that would be appropriate unless you think more discussion is needed before a formal proposal is launched. How were the other CSD expansion proposals named? Just do similar after updating it for any improvements suggested so far and perhaps incorporating options so that any individual drawbacks don't sink the ship. - Taxman Talk 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For lack of a better idea: Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles. Dmcdevit·t 08:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on [[WT:CSD]] 

message: I fully support this idea. With increase in the size and popularity of Wikipedia, we'll be overrun with poorly referenced articles, which may be hoaxes, and sorting through them would take mind-numbing amounts of time. I also agree with the specifics spelled out in the proposal, and the 14 days grace period.  --May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91 08:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Shreshth91 

message: I proposed basically this on WT:CSD after reading the discussion (link permlink to current version), without even realising the benefits to AfD closure. As Robert A West says on the CSD talk page, the person who writes an article is usually in the best position to source it, and if there is a deletion system in place we can put warnings in interface messages telling people to provide sources if they don't want the article they created deleted.
By the way, I've listed this page on policy RFC to get more feedback about the proposal (in a case like this, it's pretty important that the wording's reasonable to begin with).
We still need an article tag and a usertalk warning template; I'd be willing to have a start at creating these so that there can be a proposal with all the details filled out. --ais523 09:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:ais523|ais523]] 

message: How is it going to to be implemented? If it's "14 days after tagging", not "14 days after creation", we need a mechanism of keeping track of the waiting time. That means: Either a system of dated tag categories, like the dated prod system, or a list page, like the copyvio system. Either way, it will need rules: Who decides when it's legitimate to delist an article when sources have been provided? What if the creator adds a source but it's blatantly inadequate? Basically, this seems to be introducing not just a new criterion to the CSD system, but a new (fourth? fifth?) deletion process. From the perspective of the tagger, I'm a bit afraid it's not going to be "speedy" at all: learn yet another new reporting system with its own tag templates and rules and everything, tag the thing, keep a watch on it for 14 days to see if the response is adequate; if not, back to square one. If I wanted to get rid of a bad article "speedily", I might still go for an AfD right away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementation? 

message: The proposal is a good one. I'd like to add that I hope admins will be extremely sympathetic to requests (particularly from newbies) to undelete articles deleted under this criterion if the editor requesting undeletion undertakes to add their references shortly after undeletion (and/or says what sources they used in the article that they'd like to add to it as references). jguk 10:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. In fact, that ought to be added to the proposal; I'll go and do it now. --ais523 11:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undeletion 

message: Completely unnecessary.  The eventual creep will then move to sources that may have questionable reliability, then to sources that may not be readily verifiable, and judging by how poorly newer CSD criteria such as A7 and G11 have been handled, there's no way we can trust that this can be handled properly.
We have prod and AfD for a reason.  Let's stick with them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that this is 'completely unnecessary'; as for the creep problem, careful watching of CSD shows that creep (in criteria such as G11) tends to go in the other direction, towards lenience. --ais523 12:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, I haven't seen evidence of it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I also disagree that this is 'completely unnecessary'. I'd argue the opposite, that it is completely necessary if Wikipedia is ever going to become a reliable source itself (it certainly isn't at present!). Nor will there be a creep to speedily delete articles with source with questionable reliability. Where articles have questionable sources, they will be discussed - if they are vindicated, or if better sources are found, the article will stay. It will never be a CSD issue, but one for sensible discussion. If an article is unable to be justified except by sources found to be dubious then it really has no place in Wikipedia, jguk 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No single source is inherently "reliable."  We can't expect Wikipedia to surpass any other encyclopedic-style source, which should never be used as a singular source regardless.  There has always been creep with speedies and this would be no different.  More eyes, less deleiton, more fixing - that's the answer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At present university undergraduates are often warned not to use Wikipedia as it is not reliable (Wikipedia being specifically singled out). There's no reason why we shouldn't aim to make these warnings a thing of the past. Neither is there any reason why Wikipedia shouldn't become the most reliable encyclopedia - we have enough people working on it, and we're not too far behind Encyclopaedia Britannica already. Wikipedia won't get there with one big bang, but positive moves such as this proposal will get us there in the end, jguk 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this move is "positive," or will bring us any closer.  That's the point.  Hell, as an undergraduate history student, I was told to stay away from all encylcopedias - they're not meant for any sort of significant reference.  Just because we hear Wikipedia singled out in the news doesn't mean that it's not across the board in reality for encyclopedias.  The amount of lost content combined with the fact that we simply have no evidence that such a CSD would be handled properly by adminsitrators given the way previious CSDs have been held makes this a huge, huge mistake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts from badlydrawnjeff 

message: Keep in mind the basic standards for a criteria for speedy deletion, from Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Read this before proposing new criteria.  The criterion should be objective, uncontestable, arise frequently, and nonredundant.  "Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it."
I think the proposal fails the uncontestable point, which is more fully explained as "it should be the case that almost all articles that can be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus. If a rule paves the path for deletions that will cause controversy, it probably needs to be restricted."  I can see a significant number of articles being created that don't have reference, but readily could have them, and probably should not be deleted because the subject meets WP:BIO, WP:WEB, WP:CORP, etc...  This is even more of a problem in areas like schools, where we don't even had a standard because there is no consensus on what the standard should be.
I know the current intent is to restrict the criteria to future articles, but sooner or later it will get applied to long standing ones also.  My personal example of a historical article that is obviously a subject we should cover and for which references exist, but which lacked references, is Geology.  I added the first citation style reference on 1 September 2006, but the article was first created on 2 August 2001.  It went just under 5 years before getting a citation style reference, and none of the external links were really references for the article as a whole (though undoubtedly some of them backed up some portions of the article).
Although I believe that sourcing is important (see User:GRBerry#Quality), I don't believe we have moved the culture enough for lack of sourcing to be a basis for speedy deletion.  Our policy is that content must be verifiable, not that it must be verified.  First move the policy, then establish a CSD.  For now, PROD and AFD are adequate.  I would start my moving the AFD culture, to establish that if sourcing is challenged during an AFD, sourcing needs to be demonstrated during that AFD for the article to be kept.  GRBerry 18:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to me to be a first step in the right direction. Of course, in time, I'd like to see every article properly referenced. That will not happen overnight. Instilling a culture of referencing will, of itself, encourage people to add references to old articles that do not happen. We're a fair way off (years and years) looking at removing all old unreferenced articles. When it happens (as ideally it should) it will need to be done in a way that means WP does not lose lots of content and that concerns such as yours can be allayed. If they can't be allayed at that stage, then I can't see such a proposal succeeding. But realistically we are years away from being in a position to do this. The current proposal stops the current situation from worsening. It should be welcomed as such. jguk 18:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a critical misunderstanding of the Verifiability policy: "Our policy is that content must be verifiable, not that it must be verified." . When we use the term "verifiable", we do not mean information that could be verified with a source, we mean information that is able to be verified by readers because it has a source. This is the central point of the verifiability policy: "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." So our policy is certainly not, in the sense you're proposing, to require verifiable, but not require verified information. Using this more correct interpretation of verifiability, it becomes clear why the criterion would be uncontestable: it is already our policy that unsourced material be be removed if a source is not provided when challenged. Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." (from the current version of WP:V, although this may not be authoritative as it was protected due to an edit war). To me this means that the current policy requires sources to be given for anything that has ever been disputed (which must be quite a portion of Wikipedia by now), and technically speaking the placing of the tag would constitute a challenging of the material IMO (but see WP:IAR; I think it may be justified to discount this argument using it). The AfD point is a good one which was already brought up on WT:CSD; it's possibly worth changing policy to prevent a 'keep pending sources' result on AfD. --ais523 09:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative Comment by GRBerry 

message: :Main problem we face has long since shifted from coverage to reliability, accuracy, and neutrality.
The main problem who faces? Where is the evidence of this? Which articles? Which readers? Which editors face this problem? I focus mainly on animal-related articles and the main issue is still coverage, and will remain coverage unless every one of the next 1.5 million articles is about an individual plant or animal species. 
:Have you read any news coverage of Wikipedia? A very large proportion of it focuses on the fact/perception that on the whole Wikipedia is not reliable. Add to that Carnildo's point that on the whole existing articles don't get referenced and we have a problem. Having more unreferenced content is not helpful. More referenced content is extraordinarily so. - Taxman Talk 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourcing will not solve this problem.  The perception is only partially due lack of sourcing, but it also has to do with who edits the encyclopedia.  If you think people are lazy about sourcing now, they'll be even lazier to check up on the sourcing.  In addition, WP:CSB has some major areas that haven't been filled in yet.  ColourBurst 15:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: False underlying assumptions

message: :One of the most important efforts in this regard is referencing all the articles we already have. Unfortunately, this is an impossible task, because we are inundated every day with more and more unreferenced new articles that will languish in that state, while more are created, faster than we are referencing, or likely possibly can reference, existing articles. The fact is that an unreferenced article is not helpful ...
There are a number of assertions and hyperbole here, but I'd just like to point out the obvious contradiction made here:
#You are saying people are creating articles.
#You are saying a different set of people are adding references to those articles.
#You are saying that unreferenced articles are basically worthless and should be deleted.
Obviously step 2 above cannot happen without step 1, and step 2 is happening without access to the original source material that the articles have come from. So, it is fair to say, that not only is the unsourced article helpful for creating a sourced article, but, as the referencing can occur without the help of the original author, it seems perfectly clear to me, that other sources can also be found by anyone READING the article. And, therefore, an article is still helpful even when it is unsourced.
People accessing Wikipedia are on the Internet and connected to the World Wide Web. Searching Google is probably how most people come up with their references anyway. We can safely assume readers of Wikipedia can do the same.
:Misses the point that the article isn't very helpful until it is sourced, and the person that comes along and does the sourcing could easily have created the article with sources in the first place. - Taxman Talk 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inherent contradiction

message: Requiring referencing is like holding up a big sign to any and all potential new Wikipedia editors saying "FUCK OFF". Editing an article should be easy, writing your first article should not be difficult. Adding references and learning to reference properly is not easy, and should not be a requirement for contributing to Wikipedia. Especially, as explained above, unsourced articles are still helpful.
Perhaps some people think that deleting one good article for every 100 nonsense ones is okay. I don't. Especially when the person who sees his or her genuine article deleted for trivial reasons decides not to waste his or her time on Wikipedia any longer, and doesn't bother with the next 99 articles he or she may have written. —Pengo  talk · contribs 00:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scaring away newbies

message: Now besides having:
*Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted.
Appear on every edit screen,
You will also have:
*You must include the source of your statements, or your text will be deleted.
Doesn't make Wikipedia very fun.
:"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." can be replaced with "Encyclopedic content must provide its sources" at a minimal extra character count; providing sources is a strictly stronger requirement than verifiability, so the old requirement can be dropped from the line. --ais523 08:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not here to be a party.  We're here to write an encyclopedia, and citing sources isn't exactly hard. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you see. Actually, we're each here because we enjoy it. Easy to forget this in the sort of overseer-with-whip mode some people operate in. We're here writing an encyclopedia because we find it fun, each for our own meaning of fun. Make Wikipedia un-fun wouldn't achieve a great deal, after all. Splash - tk 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, how about "Source what you write :)"?  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another fugly message

message: Rather than deleting whole articles because you don't like the lack of references, how about another solution that instead encourages referencing another way.
How about some more creative solutions:
*Write some docs on how to find sources, on a topic per topic basis
*Replace ugly stub notices and "THIS ARTICLE IS UNREFERENCED" noticed with "Help us find references for this article" with some links that are actually helpful.
*Brainstorm other solutions
—Pengo  talk · contribs 00:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Carrot, not Stick

message: :"If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."
This does not apply to the vast vast majority of unsourced articles. Most articles do have reputable, reliable, third-party sources, they simply don't mention them.
:"Any edit lacking a source may be removed".
The operative word here is MAY, not MUST. 
:Jimmy Wales has stated about articles on living persons, which are especially in need of accuracy and sourcing, that "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information".
This is only about one topic (living persons), and Jimmy Wales is just trying to cover his arse because he's tired of seeing potential law suits. Moray eels being unreferenced is hardly going to cause a law suit.
—Pengo  talk · contribs 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful closing. How about substitute "Jimmy Wales is just trying to cover his arse" with Jimbo is rightfully protecting the Wikimedia foundation (ie the entity that pays for the servers and is responsible for making sure it keeps running) from potential lawsuits. But lawsuits aren't the only issue, information quality is. Whatever we can do to increase information quality accross the board is the most important thing we can do. Also you're misunderstanding WP:V, if the article doesn't list a source, then for all practical purposes it doesn't have one. - Taxman Talk 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but be careful. The quality of the information isn't improved if it is deleted. Perhaps the net total quality of the entire encyclopedia is increased, by virtue of dividing the static total quality between fewer articles, but that's not the same thing. It is not unreasonable to be pretty certain that some perfectly correct information will be removed by this CSD; again that's not likely to increase information quality, so much as result in higher average reliability per piece of remaining information. Splash - tk 22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is unreliable information good information? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I didn't mention "good information". I talked about correct information. Should we delete correct information? You're going to ask something like "what legitimate reason is there for not sourcing correct information", but that question expires at the 14 day guillotine: the questio is, at that point, should we delete correct information? Splash - tk 22:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know if it's correct unless we have a source, though. Anyway, I originally proposed three months at template talk:unreferenced. I'm not a huge fan of 14 days, but the line has to be drawn somewhere short of forever. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What legitimate reason is there for not mentioning the sources? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the quotes given

message: I'm not comfortable with this proposal. We have patrols on new pages and on recent edits that should stop anything too disastrous from appearing. I cannot see the need for more things to be deleted and it just makes creating new pages that little bit more arduous. New users will be put off as their work disappears, ok there's a tag for 14 days. Meanwhile they've been scared off and won't look at Wikipedia again. I'm sure it's stated somewhere in wikilore that one should not look to delete where one can improve. Instead of tagging articles, why not use the resource to find sources and citations? Because it's quicker not to? Time to quote J. K. Rowling (sort of): sometimes one must choose between what is right, and what it easy. Mallanox 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from Mallanox

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles. -- Donald Albury 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking positive.  Glad to see that editors understand the need for sources and aren't taking it as harshly as some people in this discussion seem to think they will. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction from the field 

message: Two points to consider:
#Approximately 80% of all Wikipedia articles are unsourced.
#Articles have only a minor tendancy to become sourced over time.
--Carnildo 05:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  I just repeated your experiment (albeit with a smaller sample size -- 30 articles), and found more like 60% as unsourced.  Well within the bounds of experimental error for such a small sample, but perhaps influenced by an increasing tendency for new articles to be well sourced?  Have you considered rerunning with a new sample of articles, rather than examining the same articles again? JulesH 22:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two points 

message: That's what this proposal is.  Killing a flea with a bomb.  
The problem can already be addressed far less offensively by merely editing the articles in question.  If you don't feel you have time to source the claims in the article yourself, edit them out.  The advantages of this are that it works for ALL Wikipedia articles, no matter the age, gets the unsourced edits off the current revision, yet allows people who aren't administrators (remember us, anyone???) to see what edits may have been perfectly good, but needed sources.  If you doubt it, copyedit.  
All this requires is a gradual change in the culture of editors rather than adding more bureaucratic hell and rules to memorize.  Unfocused 05:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be solved by editing the articles. That's exactly what this criterion is about. An unsourced article is tagged and the creator alerted, and it is given 14 days to be edited to fix it. It's no bomb (and unsourced articles are no flea, either). If it can't be sourced in 14 days, than he article itself is "edited out," which is deletion, for an article. It's teh same principle. Of course, we need a deletion criterion to be able to enact that culture change that will get people to find the sources. At the moment, there's absolutely nothing failing an AFD (and even that is unlikely) that can compel sources to be added to an article. The problem with saying "just edit it" is that obviously that is a red herring for most of the articles this will affect: almost all articles on Wikipedia have one or fewer maintainers, and with the amount of unsourced articles, it simply will never be fixed without movement in this direction. What's the "bureaucratic hell," by the way? I can summarize this in a succinct sentence. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're talking about destroying articles.  The rest of us are talking about removing the small bits of unverifiable information.  General Sherman shouldn't be an administrator here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article has no sources, then surely all of it is unsourced? The CSD is to delete articles which have no sources (and therefore within which all information is unsourced). --ais523 14:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library.  You'd rather delete that.  Flea, meet bomb.  I love that analogy, it's perfect. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either it can already be deleted under CSD A1, or there's some information there. If there's enough information there to do the research, it must come from somewhere (possibly suggesting where to look). If the stub's just half-remembered, possibly incorrect information, a post on Wikipedia:Requested articles would probably achieve a better request than placing it in Wikipedia. To try to get some evidence, I just hit Special:Random until I got a stub and came up with Cowie Hill, Halifax (first stub I came across); and it had a reference which at least proves the information's correct and acts as a starting point. Second stub (although it isn't tagged) is Mirko Derenčin, which has no references. I know nothing about Croatian history, but if this policy was in place the reference that the article was created from would have been given. (I'll just add  and  tags to it, but it would get sourced a lot faster if this rule had been in place when it was written.) Next page: John Powers (poet). BLP, with no references. All the information here is unsourced, and again knowing the source would be useful. If any of the information here were false, Wikipedia might get into trouble with the media/person concerned, and I have no way of checking it from the information provided. So I can place  on it, or  on it, under present policy... (/me thinks a bit; /me tries prod). I'd call this situation more than a flea; the only good way to stop this happening is by preventing it at source by requiring sources when the article is made. How would you edit it to correct the sourcelessness only by removing information? --ais523 15:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So now you're advocating misuse of A1?  This is why I'm afraid of the misapplication of this possible CSD.  To answer your question, I'd do what I'm already doing - either stubbing the article, or finding some sources.  I don't even bother prodding or AfDing, I'll assume good faith that it can be cleaned up by someone more knowledgeable.  We can all do this in the meantime, and we don't need to lose a ton of articles doing it.  A stub is much, much better than nothing at all, and stubbing an article causes little to no strife, as opposed to pissing off most of the editors here by just deleting things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killing a flea with a bomb. 

message: It doesn't often happen, but I have to agree with badlydrawnjeff here; this is massive overkill. We're already deleting too many people's work because people find it easier to argue in XFD, hit the delete button, or whistle up a tree on talk pages than find sources. Our backlog for sourcing is HUGE; I'll be the first person to admit that. But the solution isn't to delete unsourced articles, it's to source them! If half the effort in AFD went into finding sources rather than deleting the merits of whether or not to keep someone's well-intentioned stub, we'd have more than 20% sourcing already. It's funny, but when I hit Special:Randompage, I end up with one stub about a radio station with an external link, one article about a river in France (with source), a stadium stub w/o sources, and a television station with some sources. This is too subjective and will be misapplied, much like A7 is now. -- nae'blis 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the fact is they aren't getting sourced. We need to do something, the current system is not enough. Since sourcing the articles we have is not working, the only way to improve the percentage of sourced articles is to stop the flood of unsourced additions. The only acceptable alternative is one that can make a drastic impact on the sourcing of articles. - Taxman Talk 17:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So work harder to change the culture without making crazy moves that are guaranteed to be misapplied and cause massive wikidrama.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not good enough. I've been doing that, but we need to do that and more. After years of promoting the need for sources, the percentage of sourced articles is unacceptably low. - Taxman Talk 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then can we start with a dated  tag? If we need to do more, and we do, let's leverage the wiki system rather than using it to delete hide information from casual and new editors. I'd love to see some statistics on what gets improved faster: redlinks or stubs, but I don't know how to get it. -- nae'blis 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What's subjective about zero sources whatsoever? Either there's an entry in the References section or there isn't. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by nae'blis 

message: While I agree that it's very desirable for articles to be sourced, I completely oppose this proposal. Why? Because it's a deletionist's charter and will be employed gleefully by some people to kill as many articles as possible. I have no problems with deleting rubbish. As an admin, I do it myself. However, I have noticed in recent months a disturbing increase in the number of people who seem to come to Wikipedia solely to delete and not to create, to criticise and deride other people's work and not to contribute their own. I am certainly not in any way denigrating the many people who do good housekeeping work on Wikipedia, but our main aim here is to create an encyclopaedia, not to delete what others have written, unless it really is unsalvageable rubbish or fan drooling about utterly non-notable subjects. I have seen some people say that their ultimate aim is to delete articles at a faster rate than they are created. I cannot agree with that sentiment and this proposal will merely make it easier to achieve, while deleting a lot of good work and alienating a lot of good editors. Not being sourced does not automatically mean a bad article! -- Necrothesp 17:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being sourced means not being able to tell if it's a bad article, because we have nowhere to look to check! Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny. I've always been able to get a sense of whether an article is complete rubbish or not! Usually the bad writing and ludicrous claims give it away. For any controversial or ridiculous claims then I'd entirely agree you need a source. For anything else? Sorry, but no. Desirable, yes; speedily deletable without, no. -- Necrothesp 17:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the ridiculous ones you need to worry about, it's the ones that sound perfectly reasonable but in fact contain completely wrong and misleading information.  Someone creates an article on some item, like say nihilartikel that sounds perfectly reasonable on its surface, but in fact is a totally made up word that never existed before wikipedia, and you'll have no source to check it against. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but they are rare enough for me to be bothered far more about the carving up of Wikipedia by the deletionists than by the handful of plausible-sounding hoax articles. -- Necrothesp 19:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt this will lead to carving up.  I nominated Patience Dabany to DYK; someone pointed out that it needed sources, I found a couple and added them to the article. No pain, and now we have a sourced article, and it reminded me to include sources when I wrote USS Firebolt (PC-10).  Would you trust those articles if they didn't have sources available? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience differs. Walk away from an article, and in a month it won't be trustworthy, sourced or unsourced. Editors will change text, up to reversing its meaning, without removing the source. Sourced articles are somewhat easier to fix, but many of them offer the appearance of reliability without the existence. Sourcing is a good thing, but it's not the magic bullet. Septentrionalis 21:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Try doing the same on Alexander Hamilton, which is exhaustively sourced, to off-line sources; and is still invaded by cranks, who change the text without dislodging the sources. Sourcing is, I repeat, a good thing; but it will not solve our problems.  Septentrionalis 23:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying sources aren't useful. I'm saying that I don't trust the deletionists to be sensible about applying a new policy. For every person who will go off and try to find a source there are five more who will say "it's unsourced, get rid of it" even if it's obviously a perfectly legitimate article, and who won't even try to find out about the subject first. It's them I worry about. In addition, it's easy enough to make up a published source - and nowhere does it say (or should it say) that sources have to be electronic. Your apparently brilliantly sourced perfect article might in actuality be a load of rubbish and its extensive sources all made up. Sourcing, as Septentrionalis says, is not the answer to all ills. -- Necrothesp 23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone claims it is, but it's a start. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a start is not a reason to widen the speedy deletion criteria! -- Necrothesp 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  NO one thing solves all of our problems, should we not do any of them? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually, if expanding the speedy deletion criteria would be a start to improving wikipedia, I would vote for it in a heart beat.  I have been reading this argument thoroughly and I have come to appreciate that there are good points on both sides.  It seems like the debate is over an age old security problem, do we ban everything and only permit what we know to be good or vice versa.  This philosphical debate will likely continue for eternity.  My vote is delete the crap and don't write even a stub if you can't provide a source.Alan.ca 05:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]]

message: Let's say I put an article with sources up for AFD on the basis that the sources are not reliable, and I describe a diligent inquiry into whether sources exist, the article could be gone within five days if no one comes up with a reliable source.  
If current policy (including Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators) is followed, the closing admin should ignore any "keep" except an actual source or a reasonable argument that the existing sources are sufficient.  The article could be gone in five days.
Under this proposed process, the article has at least 14 days from tagging.  I think that is a good choice.  AFD is five days, which might be too short.  We would end up either deleting salvagable articles or subverting the process in some way.
Now, some have suggested allowing an article based entirely on self-published and/or fraudulent sources to be tagged; others would not.  This can be tweaked, but the proposal is actually less deletionist than using AFD and enforcing existing policy. 208.20.251.27 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really.  AfD guarantees many, many eyes seeing the article and the issues surrounding it, and requires a consensus to act.  This requires only two sets of eyes - one to tag, one to delete, and that's if the 14 day situaiton applies, and assumes that the person tagging isn't deleting 14 days later.  More eyes = better sources = better articles.  Consensus = important. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should have a log of pages so tagged, like PROD, so that editors can check for articles that they can add reference to. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't work the same way.  Prod is very easy, this is not.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it more difficult than prod? - Taxman Talk 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod involves nothing more than a single judgement call.  This requires much, much more, including not only finding a source for somehting that may not be easy to find sources on to save aggressive, moronic deletion, but finding a source that an admin who wants to delete it will accept as reasonable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you get the point of this.  It doesn't require sources for every statement, just a minimum of a single source for the entire article.  Any source is sufficient to prevent speedy deletion under this, even an unreliable webpage.  We shouldn't be creating articles without a source in the first place anyway.  Disputed sources would need AfD.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I get the point, and I find the point to be transparent and disturbing.  I've seen too many CSds get expanded and implemented and abused, and this will be no different, and this is especially unnecessary.  You say it'll only need one source, yet A7s are consistently deleted with assertions of notability.  Guaranteed, within 6 months of implementation, someone will propose we limit it to reliable sources, and then the spree begins again.  This should never, ever be allowed to happen. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, red herrings all around. This involves nothing more than a single judgement call: is there a source or isn't there. That's not as drastically hard as you're making it out to be, and is much more objective than deciding if an article asserts notability or not. Allowing unsourced additions does have the effect of making the creation of a reliable reference work much more difficult. But now that you've stepped into emotionalized language and name calling, it's clear you're not trying to evaluate the facts and aren't willing to re-assess your position. - Taxman Talk 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm forced to believe that aren't all that involved in deletion discussion, CSD implementation, or deletion review.  If you were, you probably wouldn't dismiss my legitimate observations as "red herrings" and accuse me of "name calling."  There's nothing to re-assess, not that it appears you're doing much soul-searching on the issue - this is a horrible, horrible idea. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When the name calling is three comments up from mine, it's not an accusation, it's a fact. And "There's nothing to re-assess" is probably the most problematic of anything you've said on this page. There's always reason to re-assess and see if the assumptions we are making are valuable or not, and whether the other side has points that should be conceded. Not being willing to do that is what makes improving this project more difficult than it needs to be. - Taxman Talk 21:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to accuse me of name-calling, you'd better have some evidence, otherwise it's not very civil of you.  Back on track, this is a mistake, plain and simple, and I'm disappointed to see it getting any traction, never mind that no one seems to be listening to the anti- side of this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Nah, the median AfD gets what 4-5 votes? And saying AfD should be used assumes people will vote the right way. As established they don't, they just push it off the to hopefull someday the article will get a source. A system for tracking articles that will get deleted if not sourced after 14 days will put the needed sense of urgency behind the problem and allow the needed eyes. - Taxman Talk 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read every AfD I see, and comment on maybe 4 or 5 of them per day.  The amount of votes has nothing to do with the amount of eyes that see it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but that applies just as much to this process. - Taxman Talk 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't, as I've already pointed out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  14 days is less deletionist than five days 

message: I support something similar to this, although I prefer a longer timeframe, mainly because a lot of articles are low-traffic and don't have many editors to work on them.  I see the main purpose behind doing something like this not to get rid of articles, but to light a fire under editors who create articles without sources to add them.  I proposed on template talk:unreferenced that it be made to categorize by month, with articles that have had it for three months eligible for deletion.  This gives plenty of time to add sources, but also has strict criteria for eligibility-- only goes on article with zero sources whatsoever.  If it has unreliable sources, that kind of judgement should be made by AFD, but a total lack of sources should be obvious. Also, I don't like calling this speedy because we obviously plan to give them some time before deleting.  As for the concerns that editors are deleting without looking for sources, obligation to source is on the editor adding material, not the one removing it. 
To summarize:
*This is intended first to light a fire under editors, not delete articles
*Only articles with zero sources whatsoever should face deletion without AfD
Perhaps we could extend this to pre-existing articles, but with a longer timeframe, like three or six months?  I'd also suggest a notification like we currently have in place for .
Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one should delete or nominate anything for deletion that isn't already speedy (WITHOUT this expansion) without first doing a ten second check on the search engine of their choice, even if they tagged it "need sources" ten years ago.  Doing so is lazy and disrespectful of previous editors, and violates WP:AGF.  Unfocused 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment from [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 

message: I'm afraid I don't see why this is a proposal for CSD. I thought the idea behind CSD was a sort of shoot-on-sight to get rid of complete crap. This proposal is not about speedy deletion (at least not in the same way that all the other CSD are). I don't see why this couldn't be treated more as a variant of PROD. But beyond that, I'm very uncomfortable that combining unreferenced with deletion sends mixed messages. The unreferenced template is (was) supposed to be a clean-up variety of tag. When someone puts the unreferenced template on an article, are they saying "I think this article should be deleted" or are they saying "I think this article seems reasonable, but it doesn't cite it's sources and there is no way to verify the content"? older ≠ wiser 18:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't like including it with CSD either.  I'd rather think of it as a parallel deletion system like PROD.  The trouble with being nice is that "this article seems reasonable, but it doesn't cite it's sources and there is no way to verify the content" is right smack against WP:V. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that 'speedy' deletion for unsourced and/or unlicensed images has a seven day waiting period, so there is a prededent for calling this 'speedy'. -- Donald Albury 19:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the current hard-line version of the Verifiability policy is a fairly recent interpretation. There was always a bit of ambiguity about what "verifiable" meant. I've always consiered the policy to be that it must be possible to verify information added to WP and that appropriate sources should be provided if challenged or requested. Personally, I find the voluminous footnoting of mundane details detract from Wikipedia more than they add. I'd much prefer it if articles provided a list of general references/sources for a topic and then only footnote details that are actually remarkable or contested in some way. older ≠ wiser 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hardline has come pretty much straight from jimbo.  Also, this criteria doesn't say you need footnotes or individual citations, even just one general reference is sufficient. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think taking Jimbo's words out of context to be universal truths is not a very sound basis for making policy. I completely agree that any unsourced edit that seems in any way dubious should be challenged and removed if no source is provided. Whether it is removed immediately or only after solicitations on talk pages  depends on how dubious or defamatory the edits are. I also understand that this proposal is not about footnotes in general, I was only venting a bit about a cultural shift that in some cases may be taking a good thing to too much of an extreme. older ≠ wiser 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But I might hasten to add, that while I'm not sure about using the unreferenced tag for this purpose, I would support using some form of prod-like mechanism for deleting articles that are indeed completely unreferenced (and for which no sources can be found with some minimal amount of due diligence by the deleting admin). older ≠ wiser 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Unless NightGyr is referring to some other comments from Jimbo, in which case they should be added, his hardline comments refer to living people. This page is much broader in scope. Septentrionalis 19:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here, here, and here.  Instead of leaving unsourced (and therefore unreliable) material in wikipedia with a "source needed" tag, he says we might as well remove it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one of these is not on-topic; does NightGyr intend another post from the same thread? The other two support removal, not deletion. Over-enthusiatic removal can be reversed by anyone, with the page history; deletion is much harder to reverse. Septentrionalis 19:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you have no sources, removing the unsourced information is the same as deleting the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's the same as blanking the article. This is exactly the sort of confusion that makes this proposal dangerous. Septentrionalis 19:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I strongly oppose any proposal which can be interpreted as Night Gyr interprets this one. Septentrionalis 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only think this should be policy for new articles, having gone back and looked over older ones, but I still see no reason we should allow people to write new articles without a single reference. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is why we have a waiting period during which the article is placed in a highly-visible log of unsourced pages for any interested editors.  Or should we keep unsourced content around indefinitely until someone gets around to finding out whether it's actually true or not? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So if you've already tagged it as unsourced and implicitly disclaimed the accuracy of the content, why 14 days?  Why not 3 months?  Or 3 years?  As long as it's properly tagged and in a cleanup log where interested editors can find and work on it, what's wrong with leaving it until someone has the time and interest to prove or disprove the point with facts?  Shoot, even if it's not tagged, readers can see just by looking at the page whether it's sourced or not and can evaluate the page's reliability for themselves.  Why is it necessary to create a hard and very short timeline for this work to get done?  Rossami (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by [[User:Bkonrad|Bkonrad]] 

message: Okay, so this came about in my head just now.  I still think this is absolutely horrific, and I don't consider the compromise much better, but accepting middle ground is a good thing, right?  I'm going to use 1 January 2007 as a starting point:
Any article created after 1 January 2007 that does not cite any sources or references is tagged with a  template.  If, after 14 days, the article can be AfD'd with this tag in mind and deleted if the consensus of the community is that no references are attainable.
Obviously, the language needs to be cleaned up, but this is a good idea:
# It maximizes the amount of eyes that see the article before it's deleted.
# It takes the power away from administrators who will undoubtedly, either purposefully or accidentally, abuse this tag, either by not waiting the 14 days, deleting articles with sources, or not approving of articles with sources.  It happens now with CSD A7 almost daily, so don't come out with "oh, that will never happen."
# It reduces, if not eliminates, the chances of instruction creep.  I find instruction creep arguments to be completely without merit, but this is rather airtight, and always ends in the same way, with a full hearing at a deletion process.
I'd much rather slap a historical tag on this monstrosity and be done with it, but any thoughts on this wording? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could say that articles that have an edit history of more than 50 are exempt. Addhoc 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply connected space has just less than 50 edits, but it was also pretty good when created. This also raises the problem that dividing an article is, by the system, creation of a new article; and those often appear unsourced (even when the old article had one, like the 1911 Britannica.) Septentrionalis 00:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts of a compromise wording 

message: Apparently everyone's doing it this way, so I thought I would too. (Jim! How dare you do things like everyone else! You tool!) Erm, in any case, this can be a good idea but should be approached carefully. For starters I like the idea of the grace period that'll allow people to find sources. I also like that it would not be applied retroactively -- that would cause most of the encyclopedia to disappear. One thing we could do is categorize all articles nominated under this criterion under "Articles immediately needed sources" which people would watch and try to fill in sources for articles. In regards to there being a WP:RS-related dispute, at first we should consider the definition of a source liberally, then get stricter as we progress. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A list, like the AfD log, might be better; categories aren't watchable. Septentrionalis 20:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps we could have a category and then a bot who adds the latest editions to the category to a list maintained by it, because expecting humans to maintain what will be an enormous list is too much to ask for. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Messedrocker 

message: Criteria for speedy deletion are written strictly, so that they may be uncontestable: it should be the case that almost all articles that can be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus. If a rule paves the path for deletions that will cause controversy, it probably needs to be restricted. 
No criterion which permits IAR satisfies this, and unless it is explicitly so restricted, I oppose it. Septentrionalis 21:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This tag isn't about "sourceability", it's sourced or it isn't.  Unsourced content may be removed by any editor. Uncle G has a good essay on how everything we should include is sourceable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: See User:Uncle_G/On_sources_and_content#There_are_no_exceptions_to_everything Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more important question is not such much "need" as "can do without" (Uncle G's argument has several problems). See Simply connected space, for example. Now it needs a source, really, I agree, but being already in possession of the knowledge that the article is right, should we/I delete it if I come across it? Do I improve Wikipedia by doing so? Do I do the readers a service? Or do I merely follow fashionable rhetoric built up from a slightly hot-headed series of posts on a mailing list? And do note that I am quite firmly in favour of well-sourced articles, too. Splash - tk 22:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't delete it (right away), we slap a tag on it that says it needs sources or we go find a source for it ourselves.  Now, the editor who originally added that article may not still be around, so we can't trust that we'll have the original author to provide sources.  On newly-created articles, however, the original author will be right there so we can say "ok, nice article, but you need to tell us your sources or it can't stay." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the answer to my question is "yes, we should delete it". Oh, and just to close the wriggle room, it doesn't count to now go and add a source to the article (good as that would be!), because this proposal deals with what should happen to the article if it were still unsourced at the speedy guillotine. Splash - tk 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good example. I fully support this proposal, however there are some exceptions probably worth discussing. In this case, the article exists in five other languages, which possibly could be enough for AfD instead of speedy. Regarding wiggle room, don't worry there are over 2500 similar articles. Addhoc 22:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strict interpretation

message: * AFAICT, There is currently no definition in a WP:Policy of what is a reliable source. (there are descriptions of what are not reliable sources, but not what is a reliable source).  --Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by PBS

message: Could I suggest the following cases should be exempt from this proposal:
*Where the article has survived an AfD.
*Where there have been more than 50 edits to the article.
*Where the article exists in other language Wikipedias.
Addhoc 13:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first case is what this proposal was originally intended to prevent! (Dmcdevit seems to want this to prevent 'keep unless sourced' results to AfDs; correct me if I misunderstand.) The second case seems reasonable, but is possibly instruction creep. The third case is undesirable; just because an interwiki exists doesn't mean that the article's any more verifiable; either it's sourced in the other language, in which case you can just borrow the same sources, or it isn't, in which case the other language article isn't any more reliable than the English version. --ais523 13:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am not sure about the 50 edits rule either.  It would further encourage edit-count padding by saving once per sentence, and twice at the end of a paragraph.  If the topic has no sources, having 50 edits doesn't magically create them.  Robert A.West (Talk) 15:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least three substantive editors would serve the same purpose, although it has the weakness that "substantive" might be a judgment call. The purpose would be to exclude articles on which there is editorial consensus; these should be sourced, not deleted. Deleting simply connected space would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Septentrionalis 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Exemptions 

message: ...which will remove all the talk of deletionists using this to get rid of articles. All we need is a clause that prevents this being used on any but very new articles (i.e. ones where the author might be reasonably expected to see the tag). The '50 edits' above is one idea, but I'd prefer a time delay; a couple of days would probably be fine, but this would work for my purposes (although probably not Dmcdevit's) if the period in which the tag could be added was as short as 15 minutes. (In that case, the 14-day requirement could probably be reduced.) Any thoughts? (I'm not sure I support this myself, but I'll at least submit it for consideration.) --ais523 13:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if I understand you correctly, you're saying that articles older than 2 weeks should be exempt? If so, then such a modification would certainly result in a much less 'shock' to the community and could be used to phase this in gradually. That said, not sure I would vote for it either, as it possibly is too gradual, I think either 50 edits or 3 months could be more appropriate. Addhoc 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the idea; articles older than a certain age (rather than just 'created before this rule came into force') would be exempt. The problem would be finding the correct age to strike a balance between making the limit useless and making the CSD useless. --ais523 17:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possible compromise 

message: Okay, I've done plenty of bitching about the idea above, but in no way do I disagree with the postulation that we need more sources on our articles. I just don't think a sword of Damocles is the way to do it. 
So can we start with a system of dated  tags, similar to ? It's embarassing to me that we have articles still in :Category:Cleanup from August 2005, and if I knew more about some of those subjects (or had more time), I would help. Being able to marshall our forces to tackle the oldest tagged unreferenced articles seems like a more productive use of our energy than ramming through a speedy deletion criterion or overloading AFD with more articles we don't actually want deleted. I can probably make the category and template system myself, but I want to know I'm not wasting my time first. I think there's a great potential for positive change to come out of this proposal. -- nae'blis 15:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a superb idea. Build up, don't knock down. The last think Wikipedia needs is a reputation for being a bureaucratic nightmare, I fear that's what it's getting though. Mallanox 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dated unreferenced tags 

message: The following are not mutually exclusive.  The first was my original proposal that led me to this (already existing) proposal.  The second is a way to use AFD without too much instruction creep: other than allowing 14 days, I think it expresses current policy. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your unsourced biography of Jane Doe Smith was deleted because it was unsourced.  To avoid possible legal problems, and out of a sense of decency, Wikipedia applies its policies on verifiability and citing sources very strictly to the biographies of living persons.  If you believe that this action was taken in error, you can ask for deletion review.  If you simply neglected to name sources, but have them, you can ask for undeletion so you can add them.  If you are unfamiliar with how to do these things, or have questions, please contact the administrator leaving this message.
Even a rank newbie should be able to clue in to the fact that a biography of a living person is different from a treatise on the Phaistos disk.  They should feel less bitten. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with the requirement for a warning (I put a link to the currently fictitious  on the  template I'm proposing to use). The message should say how to contact the user who left the message (I don't see why they'd necessarily be an admin), to avoid confusing new users who don't know how. One last BLP-related problem that I've come across occasionally is when there isn't enough info in the article to know if a person is living or not, and there are no sources given to check... --ais523 17:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should make the warning mandatory, especially if we are requiring action (as opposed to simply removing a  tag. This would be a different system, much lighter than AFD, but harder to blow off than prodding. Septentrionalis 20:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that having a trial run with biographies would be a good idea... Addhoc 17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we need to restrict this to biographies to start with, so be it. It will give us a better idea of whether this can be sensibly extended to maths articles. --ais523 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully support starting with this and seeing what happens.  It will be a good start.   John Broughton  |  Talk 18:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose major change in wiki-culture because editing and PRODding the articles in question already accomplishes the same goal.  Unfocused 18:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This process looks pretty much independent of AfD to me, although it's similar. DfV ('Deletions for Verifiability') was proposed as a name for a process like this on WT:CSD, so that seems reasonable. I have no idea how many people will bother to participate in something like this, so it might be a failure, but I don't think it could do any harm. As for your last point about misuse or subversion, you can probably leave that out as it's true for just about any process... --ais523 17:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DfV was a winking reference to the old VfD.  My reason for deciding that it should not be a separate process from AFD is twofold.  (1) Dividing attention between AfD and DfV would make mistakes more likely in each.  That split can always be done later if volume demands it.  (2) This almost describes the current AFD policy when unverifiability/OR is the reason for nomination.  The only major new feature is a 14-day period.  It could be dispensed with, but we would get reasonable pleas for additional time.  One can still nominate for unverifiability and other reasons, but the 14-day period doesn't apply and other arguments are obviously valid.  I have found it useful to avoid other considerations when I think an article is unverifiable -- I need no other argument, and it gives me a basis to challenge a keep for no reason in DRV.  The requirement that the nominator take some responsibility for checking if sources can easily be found is just, in my mind, decent behavior.   Robert A.West (Talk) 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some key differences: DfV is forced to stay on topic, nominators would be forced to concentrate on the nom due to policy, rather than custom, and it would default to delete, not keep; this last is a very significant difference. --ais523 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quote from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions."  I suppose that this proposal is designed to convince people not to ignore the rule, but IAR is for emergencies. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *It depends what one means by "default". If the nominator fails to make a prima facie case for lack of sources, the article should be kept. Septentrionalis 23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing the default from keep to delete changes Wiki culture from "assume good faith" to "prove you're good enough first" We'd better have a damned good reason to do so. For biographies of living persons, the threat of legal action does require immediate action when potentially negative content is added, but even in the case of biographies, editing the article already solves the problem! Unfocused 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *AGF has nothing to do with it.  It is the simple fact that you can't prove a negative.  I refer you to WP:V#Burden of evidence.  This is long-standing policy.  As to editing, note the criterion, "If the elimination of unsourced statements would not leave a meaningful article."   If editing will work, none of the forms of the proposal will apply.  Nomination is an assertion that, after editing out policy violations, the article would be a speedy deletion candidate.  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Quaere: What about Simply connected space, a nomination of which deserves the reply: "See any elementary point-set topology textbook"? Septentrionalis 20:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two alternatives 

message: The above discussion convinces me that I had the right idea in the first place, so I will propose it again.  The speedy delete for unverifiability should be limited to biographies of living persons, and the criteria expanded to include articles sourced only from self-published and/or notoriously unreliable sources (ala The National Enquirer)..  The grace period should be shorter as well.
Why BLP?  Because unsourced biographies are probably the biggest problem area in this regard.  If we get rid of them, we probably get rid of half the actual junk.  Also, because a false statement can harm a living person, even if it is not obviously defamatory.
Why only BLP?  People who want this to apply to everything will get a chance to demonstrate that this can be done responsibly.  People who think this will be a horror should see that there is a stronger case for BLPs, and if they are right, we will have done less damage.  People in the middle can wait and see.  
Also, I recommend a mandatory message, perhaps on a template, to be placed on the principle author (or last substantial contributor's) talk page.
:Your unsourced biography of Jane Doe Smith was deleted because it was unsourced.  To avoid possible legal problems, and out of a sense of decency, Wikipedia applies its policies on verifiability and citing sources very strictly to the biographies of living persons.  If you believe that this action was taken in error, you can ask for deletion review.  If you simply neglected to name sources, but have them, you can ask for undeletion so you can add them.  If you are unfamiliar with how to do these things, or have questions, please contact the administrator leaving this message.
Even a rank newbie should be able to clue in to the fact that a biography of a living person is different from a treatise on the Phaistos disk.  They should feel less bitten. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the requirement for a warning (I put a link to the currently fictitious  on the  template I'm proposing to use). The message should say how to contact the user who left the message (I don't see why they'd necessarily be an admin), to avoid confusing new users who don't know how. One last BLP-related problem that I've come across occasionally is when there isn't enough info in the article to know if a person is living or not, and there are no sources given to check... --ais523 17:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should make the warning mandatory, especially if we are requiring action (as opposed to simply removing a  tag. This would be a different system, much lighter than AFD, but harder to blow off than prodding. Septentrionalis 20:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that having a trial run with biographies would be a good idea... Addhoc 17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we need to restrict this to biographies to start with, so be it. It will give us a better idea of whether this can be sensibly extended to maths articles. --ais523 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully support starting with this and seeing what happens.  It will be a good start.   John Broughton  |  Talk 18:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose major change in wiki-culture because editing and PRODding the articles in question already accomplishes the same goal.  Unfocused 18:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative #1: Limit this proposal to BLP

message: There are four problems with using AFD to delete articles that are unverifiable.
#There are no agreed upon criteria to demonstrate unverifiability, as opposed to merely lacking sources.
#There is no agreement on the amount of effort the nominator should invest before nominating.  I have seen AFD's go through where the nominator admitted to only a quick Google search.  Others have been accused of bad faith and insufficient time despite extensive searches.
#If an article has been left by its creator for some time, five days may not be enough time to find someone who knows how to find a source.
#My pet peeve of "Keep and find the sources somewhere" response.
So, we can fix these, without creating a whole new procedure.
Articles nominated on AFD as unverifiable and/or original research may be specially tagged (using a template TBD), in which case the following special procedures apply.
#To reduce confusion, there should be no other reason for the nomination.  If there are other problems with the article mandating deletion, it is not bad faith to renominate for those reasons if the article is determined to be verifiable.  An article may be nominated even if it has sources, if the elimination of unsourced statements would not leave a meaningful article.
#The nominator must have reason to believe that no sources exist.  Generally, this means one of the following.
##The nominator has made a significant effort to find sources, or is aware of such efforts by others.  Efforts need not be heroic, but should be more than a single Google search.
##The article has been tagged as lacking sources or as original research for at least 90 days.
##The nominator can cite sources (including a well-sourced Wikipedia article) that cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of the subject matter.
#The burden is on those who would keep the article to add sources, or demonstrate that the current sources are adequate.  Arguments based on considerations other than verifiability and the avoiding of original research are out of place and should be ignored by the closing admin.
#The case will be considered for 14 days, rather than the standard five.  Extreme care should be exercised when closing such a case prematurely. 
#Misuse or subversion of this process will be treated as a serious disruption of Wikipedia.
This buys into the existing AFD structure, gives enough time for consideration, establishes some criteria and doesn't raise the spectre of "speedy" deletion.  Submitted for your approval or brickbats.  Robert A.West (Talk) 17:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This process looks pretty much independent of AfD to me, although it's similar. DfV ('Deletions for Verifiability') was proposed as a name for a process like this on WT:CSD, so that seems reasonable. I have no idea how many people will bother to participate in something like this, so it might be a failure, but I don't think it could do any harm. As for your last point about misuse or subversion, you can probably leave that out as it's true for just about any process... --ais523 17:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DfV was a winking reference to the old VfD.  My reason for deciding that it should not be a separate process from AFD is twofold.  (1) Dividing attention between AfD and DfV would make mistakes more likely in each.  That split can always be done later if volume demands it.  (2) This almost describes the current AFD policy when unverifiability/OR is the reason for nomination.  The only major new feature is a 14-day period.  It could be dispensed with, but we would get reasonable pleas for additional time.  One can still nominate for unverifiability and other reasons, but the 14-day period doesn't apply and other arguments are obviously valid.  I have found it useful to avoid other considerations when I think an article is unverifiable -- I need no other argument, and it gives me a basis to challenge a keep for no reason in DRV.  The requirement that the nominator take some responsibility for checking if sources can easily be found is just, in my mind, decent behavior.   Robert A.West (Talk) 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some key differences: DfV is forced to stay on topic, nominators would be forced to concentrate on the nom due to policy, rather than custom, and it would default to delete, not keep; this last is a very significant difference. --ais523 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quote from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions."  I suppose that this proposal is designed to convince people not to ignore the rule, but IAR is for emergencies. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *It depends what one means by "default". If the nominator fails to make a prima facie case for lack of sources, the article should be kept. Septentrionalis 23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing the default from keep to delete changes Wiki culture from "assume good faith" to "prove you're good enough first" We'd better have a damned good reason to do so. For biographies of living persons, the threat of legal action does require immediate action when potentially negative content is added, but even in the case of biographies, editing the article already solves the problem! Unfocused 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *AGF has nothing to do with it.  It is the simple fact that you can't prove a negative.  I refer you to WP:V#Burden of evidence.  This is long-standing policy.  As to editing, note the criterion, "If the elimination of unsourced statements would not leave a meaningful article."   If editing will work, none of the forms of the proposal will apply.  Nomination is an assertion that, after editing out policy violations, the article would be a speedy deletion candidate.  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Quaere: What about Simply connected space, a nomination of which deserves the reply: "See any elementary point-set topology textbook"? Septentrionalis 20:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative #2: New procedure within AFD

message: The commentary on this proposal currently stands at over 175kb on this page alone - more when you include the discussion at WT:CSD.  The discussion seems to be stalemated to the point that we are repeating arguments and rebuttals.  It's an awful lot for anyone new to the conversation to wade through.  I have attempted to distill the pros and cons down to a single summary.  Please make changes or corrections as necessary to represent the arguments as you see them.  
Please be concise and please don't change or delete an argument just because you don't agree with it.  Rossami (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like an adequate summary. I would point out that the amount of people here raising objections still seems to be small, so "no consensus in sight" might be a bit overraction. Some of the objections are good, and can be solved by writing the concerns into the proposed wording. For example, we can add a sentence ensuring that this criterion is inapplicable to an article with any reference or external link at all. If you are weighing a source's reliability, you aren't using this criterion. Some other objections are either fundamental or missing the point, but there's no reason to think they couldn't (or might not already be) outweighed by the support of others. Dmcdevit·t 01:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did you quantify "I would point out that the amount of people here raising objections still seems to be small"? And "but there's no reason to think they couldn't (or might not already be) outweighed by the support of others" does not seem to fit in with the usual Wikipedia definition of consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the suggestion we should give this proposal a trial run in regard to BLP articles, I would suggest there is a consensus this seems to be a worthwhile idea. Addhoc 11:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't really weighed in regarding a trial run, but I am now - I'm opposed to it.  There's no pressing need for it, and I think there's a lot of issues that need to be addressed better before we dive in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be LESS opposed to a trial run in BLP than elsewhere, but I don't think it's necessarily a good idea there either. However with CS #A7 being used so strongly against articles without claims of notability, it would be a relatively smaller expansion of scope. Still not sure that you can demonstrate consensus; where has this been advertised? Is it on the Centralized Discussion page yet? I just yesterday mentioned it to the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject. -- nae'blis 15:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Increase the number of people raising objections by one.  While I have nothing to add that hasn't been stated more eloquently already, I am firmly and eternally opposed to this proposal. -Toptomcat 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  175kb with no consensus in sight 

message: # Unsourced content is a real but not urgent problem
# Deletion is too severe a remedy for the problem - lack of sources should be dealt with via cleanup
# "Speedy"-deletion does not put enough eyes on the problem
# Unsourceable or persistently unsourced articles can be deleted through the Prod or AFD processes - this new proposal is unnecessary
# Some users enjoy finding and adding academic sources, others find such work boring and will leave the project if forced to do such work
# Some topics are unnecessary to cite to a single source because they are widely known by any practitioner in the field
# If mistakes are made, undeletion is not easy and will confuse or drive away some proportion of new users
# Some articles will be deleted despite being sourced or sourceable, even with the best intentions
# Represents a negative shift in openness of Wikipedia's culture
# May produce inaccurate, careless, or false citations
# Will be used more aggressively than intended
# Encourages editors to demand work from other editors rather than encouraging them to do it themselves
# While the spirit of the plan is good, it is wrong to start with a CSD variant.  It would be better to start with an AFD variant, as that will more effectively and less contentiously move the community culture toward sourcing.
# Incomplete articles are where new users start.  Often new users won't feel comfortable editing a fully developed and referenced article.
</table>
:Seems like an adequate summary. I would point out that the amount of people here raising objections still seems to be small, so "no consensus in sight" might be a bit overraction. Some of the objections are good, and can be solved by writing the concerns into the proposed wording. For example, we can add a sentence ensuring that this criterion is inapplicable to an article with any reference or external link at all. If you are weighing a source's reliability, you aren't using this criterion. Some other objections are either fundamental or missing the point, but there's no reason to think they couldn't (or might not already be) outweighed by the support of others. Dmcdevit·t 01:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did you quantify "I would point out that the amount of people here raising objections still seems to be small"? And "but there's no reason to think they couldn't (or might not already be) outweighed by the support of others" does not seem to fit in with the usual Wikipedia definition of consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the suggestion we should give this proposal a trial run in regard to BLP articles, I would suggest there is a consensus this seems to be a worthwhile idea. Addhoc 11:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't really weighed in regarding a trial run, but I am now - I'm opposed to it.  There's no pressing need for it, and I think there's a lot of issues that need to be addressed better before we dive in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be LESS opposed to a trial run in BLP than elsewhere, but I don't think it's necessarily a good idea there either. However with CS #A7 being used so strongly against articles without claims of notability, it would be a relatively smaller expansion of scope. Still not sure that you can demonstrate consensus; where has this been advertised? Is it on the Centralized Discussion page yet? I just yesterday mentioned it to the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject. -- nae'blis 15:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Increase the number of people raising objections by one.  While I have nothing to add that hasn't been stated more eloquently already, I am firmly and eternally opposed to this proposal. -Toptomcat 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments opposed

message: I'm trying to systematically enumerate various proposals for what the criterion should say here. Each one should probably be checked to see what effect it would have, whether it would be useful, whether it would be instruction creep, and which of the opposes/supports in the table above it would invalidate. I invite discussion on each individual criterion and additions. --ais523 13:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic idea of the criterion. Each clause below limits the ability of this to apply in certain ways.
===Restrictions in the current proposal===
;The article must have had a specific tag for 14 days.
;The article must have been created after this criterion was adopted.
===Other proposed restrictions===
*1. The article must have less than 50 edits.
**or 1A: The article must only have one or two substantive editors.  
*2. The article must be newer than two weeks old.
*3. The article must not have survived an AfD.
*4. The article must have been listed on an AfD-like debate for 14 days.
** or 4A. Nominations under this proceedure may be replaced by AfD nominations, if an editor has a reason why an unsourced article should be kept. 
*5. The article must not have interwiki links.
*6. The article must be a BLP.
*7. The article must be a biography which gives no reason to suppose the subject is dead, such as being alive before 1900. amended 21:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What clauses? 

message: *1. The article must have less than 50 edits.
**or 1A: The article must only have one or two substantive editors.  
*2. The article must be newer than two weeks old.
*3. The article must not have survived an AfD.
*4. The article must have been listed on an AfD-like debate for 14 days.
** or 4A. Nominations under this proceedure may be replaced by AfD nominations, if an editor has a reason why an unsourced article should be kept. 
*5. The article must not have interwiki links.
*6. The article must be a BLP.
*7. The article must be a biography which gives no reason to suppose the subject is dead, such as being alive before 1900. amended 21:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other proposed restrictions

message: *14. The article needs at least 3 sources. This was my (extreme, admittedly) proposal, and I withdraw it.  John Broughton  |  Talk 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed generalizations

message: === Clause comments by John Broughton ===
For the generalizations (14, 15), the first is mine, and in the spirit of starting with the least controversial implementation of this proposal, I think it should be dropped.  For 15, I think that should also be dropped.  An editor always has the option of deleting a source that fails WP:RS and then tagging an article as lacking sources.
For the restrictions:
*2 - I can't find that in the text above, and in any case I don't think it makes much sense, so I suggest it be dropped.
*4 - would it suffice simply to have a page where all tagged pages (by date) are listed?  The AfD-like "process" would simply be that any editor can add a source and remove the tag, in that case.  (The devil is always in the details; such an AfD "process" would have minimal overhead and not compromise the proposal, while an "AfD-like process" that involved, say, voting, would radically change the proposal.)
*6 and 7 seem essentially the same - clarification?
*8 clearly needs a lot more explanation; in general, seems unworkable as is.
*10 isn't consistent with this proposal and I suggest it be dropped - it's not a restriction, and it's not clear who would "stubbify" articles.
*11 - needs further elaboration (at minimum, an example); seems to unduly complicate this in any case
*13 - (a) isn't consistent with the proposal - if there is a source, an article shouldn't get this tag. (see also 15)  Suggest dropping.  I do like the combination of (b) and (c) - if the article is less than 90 days, the nominator has to do a proper search or give the article more time to ripen.  (A proper search might find a few sources that indicate that the subject is not notable, leading to a regular AfD, which would still be a useful expenditure of an editor's time).
Thank you for taking the time to compile the list - very helpful, I think.  John Broughton  |  Talk 14:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks also. I would suggest this overall proposal is fairly radical and consequently many of the suggestions relate to initially restricting how this would function, to gauge community reaction. Addhoc 14:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The second point is for legacy articles (which there are many) - it's to prevent this process from getting overloaded with by someone nominating everything in sight, thus getting some articles deleted just by sheer weight of numbers.  ColourBurst 15:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You're never going to be able to deal with No. 2 unless you remove the restriction that articles created before the policy are exempt, and that's never going to happen (because that's going to remove quite a bit of content).  I do think that newbies are going to complain when you remove their article without a source, and they're inevitably going to point to an article that's already existing and say "look, there's an article without a source and it's not been deleted!"  ColourBurst 16:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, hence my comments above that this would be better as a non-deletion process. -- nae'blis 16:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  #8: "Articles which 'don't need sources' in some sense are exempt." I thought this was about e.g. disambiguation pages. Are you really saying these need sources too? Eugène van der Pijll 16:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I was thinking of the simply connected space example from above. I don't consider disambiguation pages to be "articles" at all, really, but you're right that something like A3's exception wouldn't hurt. -- nae'blis 16:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but A3's exception is not quite enough. Mentioned above are e.g. timelines, and I can add lists to that. Some lists definately need sources (often lists of (living) people), others are merely navigational. For example: none of the LoPbN lists hav sources, and they don't need it either. Eugène van der Pijll 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: On #13, do you mean too controversial? -- nae'blis 19:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and now corrected. --ais523 09:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on "What clauses?" 

message: For the generalizations (14, 15), the first is mine, and in the spirit of starting with the least controversial implementation of this proposal, I think it should be dropped.  For 15, I think that should also be dropped.  An editor always has the option of deleting a source that fails WP:RS and then tagging an article as lacking sources.
For the restrictions:
*2 - I can't find that in the text above, and in any case I don't think it makes much sense, so I suggest it be dropped.
*4 - would it suffice simply to have a page where all tagged pages (by date) are listed?  The AfD-like "process" would simply be that any editor can add a source and remove the tag, in that case.  (The devil is always in the details; such an AfD "process" would have minimal overhead and not compromise the proposal, while an "AfD-like process" that involved, say, voting, would radically change the proposal.)
*6 and 7 seem essentially the same - clarification?
*8 clearly needs a lot more explanation; in general, seems unworkable as is.
*10 isn't consistent with this proposal and I suggest it be dropped - it's not a restriction, and it's not clear who would "stubbify" articles.
*11 - needs further elaboration (at minimum, an example); seems to unduly complicate this in any case
*13 - (a) isn't consistent with the proposal - if there is a source, an article shouldn't get this tag. (see also 15)  Suggest dropping.  I do like the combination of (b) and (c) - if the article is less than 90 days, the nominator has to do a proper search or give the article more time to ripen.  (A proper search might find a few sources that indicate that the subject is not notable, leading to a regular AfD, which would still be a useful expenditure of an editor's time).
Thank you for taking the time to compile the list - very helpful, I think.  John Broughton  |  Talk 14:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks also. I would suggest this overall proposal is fairly radical and consequently many of the suggestions relate to initially restricting how this would function, to gauge community reaction. Addhoc 14:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The second point is for legacy articles (which there are many) - it's to prevent this process from getting overloaded with by someone nominating everything in sight, thus getting some articles deleted just by sheer weight of numbers.  ColourBurst 15:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clause comments by [[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] 

message: As much as I dislike this proposal, I'll weigh in on the above proposed restrictions/clauses:
*1. The article must have less than 50 edits. - No. Not sure why this is relevant.
*2. The article must be newer than two weeks old. - Undecided; "Created after January 1, 2007" seemed a better criterion, but this may actually be overly restrictive if the goal is to deal with the thousands of unsourced articles already in existence. However better to deal with newer articles first and prove it works constructively than open the floodgates immediately.
*3. The article must not have survived an AfD. - No, due to the "Keep but source" outcome people above have objected to. Unless we change the culture of AFD to neutralize that possible outcome, this may backfire. On the other hand, a "clear keep" might be a good escape clause.
*4. The article must have been listed on an AfD-like debate for 14 days. - Neutral.
*5. The article must not have interwiki links. - Irrelevant.
*6. The article must be a BLP. - Maybe. (see above regarding trial runs)
*7. The article must be a biography. - See #6.
*8. Articles which 'don't need sources' in some sense are exempt. - No, so long as we're counting "Further reading" and "References" as sources, not just explicit footnotes. All articles can and should have some sort of basis outside of the encyclopedia. Edit: Per conversation below, a common-sense exception for disambiguation pages wouldn't hurt, but seems superfluous, as they're not really articles in the same sense that redirects aren't articles.
*9. The user who created the article must be warned on their Talk page. - Somewhat against this; better phrasing might be "major contributors" but Watchlists/sufficient lead time for people to notice the CSD tag should make this moot. On the other hand, we are supposed to warn image uploaders, but those are much more difficult to "edit" collaboratively.
*10. The article can't be deleted, only stubbified. - No. If you can save something for a stub, it should be sourceable too, which throws the article/stub beyond the scope of this CSD, technically.
*11. An article that could be deleted under the other restrictions must be AfD'd first. - Huh?
*12. An article deleted under this proposal is undeleteable as soon as a source is given. - Yes.
*13. The tag can only be placed/AfD-like debate started if (a) there is doubt about the source, (b) the nominator has made a proper search to find sources, or (c) the article has been unreferenced for 90 days. - No. For it to be a CSD there should be relatively little wiggle room. "Doubt about the source" is the exact sort of scope creep some opposers have referred to. Even A7 doesn't rely a sourced claim of notability, just a claim.
*#14 and #15 have has already been withdrawn so no comment there. -- nae'blis 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're never going to be able to deal with No. 2 unless you remove the restriction that articles created before the policy are exempt, and that's never going to happen (because that's going to remove quite a bit of content).  I do think that newbies are going to complain when you remove their article without a source, and they're inevitably going to point to an article that's already existing and say "look, there's an article without a source and it's not been deleted!"  ColourBurst 16:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, hence my comments above that this would be better as a non-deletion process. -- nae'blis 16:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  #8: "Articles which 'don't need sources' in some sense are exempt." I thought this was about e.g. disambiguation pages. Are you really saying these need sources too? Eugène van der Pijll 16:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I was thinking of the simply connected space example from above. I don't consider disambiguation pages to be "articles" at all, really, but you're right that something like A3's exception wouldn't hurt. -- nae'blis 16:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but A3's exception is not quite enough. Mentioned above are e.g. timelines, and I can add lists to that. Some lists definately need sources (often lists of (living) people), others are merely navigational. For example: none of the LoPbN lists hav sources, and they don't need it either. Eugène van der Pijll 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clause comments by nae'blis 

message: After taking the time to compile the list, I'll comment on it now.
*1: Too easy to game, not very relevant.
*2: Would change the whole nature of the proposal; this would be useful in getting authors to provide sources, but not otherwise.
*3: I don't think this meshes much with the spirit behind the proposal.
*4: Overkill for me. There's a PROD-like process behind the tag which creates a central listing.
*5: Either it's sourced at the other wiki, in which case copy the sources, or it isn't, in which case this isn't useful.
*6 and 7: BLPs are more urgent. The '7' variation (which I proposed above) is because in some cases there's little context in a biography and no source, so you can't tell whether the person is living or not.
*8: I'm not too clear on what this means either. The dabpage point above is a good one; dabs and redirects probably don't count as articles (tellingly, the CSD for a 1-link dab page is G6, not A-anything, and redirects have their own CSDs).
*9: I fully support this one, to help avoid WP:BITE problems, and because it's the original author who was using sources in the first place. I'm happy with wording tweaks, however.
*10: Defeats the point of a CSD.
*11: Why not just AfD the page anyway?
*12: Similar 'safety valve' to PROD; not allowing this would make no sense to me (in fact, I placed 12 in the proposal for a while).
*13: Too uncontroversial for a CSD.
*14/15: Withdrawn, but would have been bad ideas anyway; there's no point in trying to expand this too early.
--ais523 17:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On #13, do you mean too controversial? -- nae'blis 19:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and now corrected. --ais523 09:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clause comments by ais523

message: *2. The article must be newer than two weeks old. Useful; on January 15 it will be more restrictive than created after January 1, 2007. This increases the chance of getting the creator, who knows where he got it, to source it. I would deprecate using this as a way to delete unwatched articles; that's one of the costs of  - an acceptable one there.
*3. The article must not have survived an AfD. Probably desirable; CSD's should be for articles which have a snowball's chance of surviving AfD. Since it's prospective, no article which has now had a "Surely, there must be sources somewhere" AfD falls under this process anyway.
*4. The article must have been listed on an AfD-like debate for 14 days. No, this should be lighter than AFD, or what's the point?
*4A Nominations under this policy may be replaced by AfD nominations, so that reasons to keep can be explained. 
*6. The article must fall under BLP. This is the obvious first step, and where this is most needed. Let's start here.
*7. The article must be a biography. Amended 7 per Ais523's explanation; I suspect this would still fall under BLP.
*8A. Disambiguation pages are not subject to this policy. If we don't say this, some good soul will do it. 
*9. The user who created the article must be warned on their Talk page. The proposed tag provides a mechanism for this; let's use it. However, all we can do, in practice, is recommend; I don't think this is enforceable. 
*12. An article deleted under this proposal is undeleteable as soon as a source is given.Are we agreed on this? It's in the proposal now.
*13. The tag can only be placed/AfD-like debate started if (a) there is doubt about the source, (b) the nominator has made a proper search to find sources, or (c) the article has been unreferenced for 90 days. Unenforceable; but the wording should suggest looking for sources before tagging; as more helpful to WP.
I have two substitute suggestions, which fulfill some of the purposes of some of the above. 
*14/15 If withdrawn, they should be struck. I am opposed to both: Some articles are completely sourced from two references; whether such articles should be merged or deleted is a judgment call, and should be done by discussion. Whether sources are reliable is also a matter of judgment, and should also be done by discussion. Septentrionalis 20:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments by User:Pmanderson

message: (only 2 I can think of, most people have gotten the rest)
*5: interwiki links can be a good place for sources, but they can't be the sole support for an article.  I don't think we have enough cross-wiki communication at the moment, though, it might be a good point.  ColourBurst 05:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Colourburst

message: If a rule has too many clauses, people will not them, see m:instruction creep. People will ignore the clauses and go ahead and do what they like with the criterion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General comment on clauses by Sjakkalle

message: Much of the concerns, and support, are necessarily speculative. I want to propose that we begin a month-long test run sometime in the future, to observe whether the problems we fear and the benefits we look forward to occur. We are arguing whether or not things will happen certain ways right now, when we could simply find out. At the end of the trial period, the application of the CSD should stop, without exception, to allow assessment of the criterion to resume.
Problems we might look for that only a trial period is likely to reveal:
*How easy is undeletion for recreated articles?
*Will it be used more aggressively than intended?
*How often will mistakes (articles for which sources are not necessary) be made?
*Does biting appear to be at an unacceptable level?
Thoughts? Dmcdevit·t 06:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial run 

message: I really see only improvements arising from what really is a modest proposal.
It's a quite reasonable request to ask the author of an article - how do you know that? can you give me a reference? And it's not a particular onerous question to answer provided you really are writing about something you know about. After all, if you can't tell me why you believe it to be true, why should you present it to me as true.
Very quickly after implementation, those creators of articles who are not yet providing references will get into the habit of adding them, which will improve the reliability of Wikipedia. When occasionally they make a mistake, the article will be tagged, and they can go back and add the references. And as long as they are informed of the situation, that will happen. jguk 11:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requiring references really shouldn't be a big deal 

message: Granding that truth is not a defense against nonverification, I do note that WP:V say "Any article that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source". The great majority of statements are not likely to be challenged by any reasonable person. For instance, take the statement "A. C. Smith was commander of XV Corps of the British Army of the Rhine from 1957 to 1959." Who would challenge that? To challenge it, you would have to have some reasonable cause to suspect that it isn't true. But who would make something like that up? And the great majority of unverified statements are of this type.
Of course, it's possible that the statement was made up by a sneaky vandal. But very, very few such statements would be so - vandals don't work like that. (For that matter that vandal could just a source that doesn't support the statement and, provided it isn't online, no one would be likely ever be the wiser.)
It's also possible that the person made a mistake - it's a different A. C. Smith, maybe, that commanded XV corps. Or that his source (whatever it was) is itself in error. In this case, referencing isn't going to help much... the reference would point to a valid source that stated that one A. C. Smith was indeed commander of XV Corps, and absent further digging the reader has no way to find out that it's a different Smith or that the source is wrong.
I do enforce very strict verification standards on the articles I mainly work on, because they are contentious and open to POV and OR statements, but for stuff like the example here, which is most of our stuff - I don't see why the spirit of "...that is challenged or likely to be challenged..." shouldn't be the standard for demanding verification. Herostratus 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal is not really about that. It only asks for one reference for each new article. Though a reference for your claim really would be beneficial. Maybe it was CA Smith, or the XIV Corps or from 1947 to 1949. I'd therefore recommend giving a source for everything so anyone so minded can check it. But as noted before, this proposal does not go anywhere near as far as that - just asking for one reference for each article (which will at least provide evidence that the subject matter exists), jguk 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenged 

message: While I appreciate the motivation for this proposal, the more I think about it, I'm most concerned about its effectiveness.  If any external reference will suffice to thwart off this CSD, then what is it really buying?  People will just start adding their own personal home pages or the first entry in the results of a Google search.  How is that helping?  If this proposal were to require secondary sources to establish some base notability, that would have some teeth behind it.  I'd be all for it.  The way it's proposed now, I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in neither the deletion of any article nor the overall improvement of Wikipedia.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't create articles anonymously. An editor creating lots of articles with clearly inappropriate references will soon be sussed out, and appropriate measures taken, jguk 21:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inappropriate how?  What is this going to catch that other CSD won't?  Frankly, if an article looks like borderline notability and is unreferenced, I'll just bring it to AFD - it's faster. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *And how will he be sussed out? Quite possibly only the nominators and the deleting admins will have seen the nominations. On AfD there's more eyes to notice that User:wasteoftime keeps showing up to defend cruft. Septentrionalis 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness 

message: Instead of this, why don't we add Do show where you got your facts or even Articles without sources may be deleted  to the edit screen. (As NightGyr keeps pointing out, the second is possible under present policy.) If we're trying to scare people straight, let's make sure that it's a message new editors will actually see. 
I don't say anything for either wording above, except that it's short. Septentrionalis 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest taking this to MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning, where this change will have to be discussed anyway before being implemented. (I suggested something similar on WT:CSD.) --ais523 11:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's be direct

message: As an example of why this proposal should not be tightened to require any more than the existence of a source, I present Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abba Samuel of Dabra Wagag, where an a editor nominated an article on the grounds This is almost utter nonsense. Also, the only source is in Latin, so no one can really verify it. Finally, this could be a possible violation of WP:HOAX. 
The article is about an Ethiopian saint, and summarizes his Life. (The "nonsense" is mostly bad English by the author of the article; also a couple miracles.) It is sourced from the translation of that hagiography (into French, not Latin). It was contributed by a very new contributor, who hasn't been back in three weeks. (It also needs a lot of work.) 
Now suppose that the nom had used this proposal, extended to judge sources. It is clear that he considers the source unreliable; so he would tag it. I doubt anyone (except perhaps the creator) was watching the article, so the tag would probably stick, and we would lose this article, which might not be replaced for years. (Who knows Ge'ez saints?) Fortunately, he brought it to AfD instead. Septentrionalis 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that "example" have to do with the current proposal. The article had a source; there is already no substantial support for including articles with dubious sources in this proposal. Dmcdevit·t 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still see substantial support for this among the support !votes; but if the horse is dead, so much the better. Septentrionalis 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the support for evaluating sources comes almost entirely from the discussion about an XfD process, where there are more eyes and a chance to gain consensus on the validity of a source.  Of course, one could remove fake, irrelevant and unreliable sources and then nominate under CSD, but unless the case for removal was clear and strong, the admin should revert to the "sourced" version. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A horrible example

message: I strongly oppose this proposal in its current form.  My reasons are:
* A very large majority of articles are unsourced, and generally remain unsourced for long periods of time.
* An unsourced article is useful -- it is a basis off which an editor can work to produce a usefully sourced one.
* An article deleted is nearly useless -- it will only ever be useful if the editor who eventually fixes the issues with it actually knows about it, and can persuade an admin to undelete it.  This won't happen very often, largely because it's highly unlikely that the user who would fix the problem would know about the existence of the deleted article.
* Most completely unsourced articles are written by newbies.  This makes the entire proposal sound somewhat like WP:BITE to me.  Certainly, I think a requirement to provide sources with all new content would deter new editors.
* Finding suitable sources for an article can sometimes be a long process that requires the interaction of multiple editors over a long period of time.  See, for instance, the edit history of Disemvoweling, an article that took three editors working together for several weeks to find a source that overcame the objections of one of the other editors.
But:
* Unsourced information is a big problem.  It decreases public opinion of the project, which is an important issue.
* Unsourced information on BLPs is a serious problem; it opens up the foundation to potential legal issues.
Therefore, I think something should be done.
My suggestion:
* Apply something like this proposal to BLPs.  I think, in this case, waiting 14 days even is not appropriate; the material should be removed as soon as possible.  Perhaps the 5 days currently allowed for prod would be appropriate.
* For other articles, there should be a large, friendly banner, that explains clearly that the article has no sources and could therefore be incorrect, and advises readers that they shouldn't trust its content, and
* There should also be another banner which states that information has been removed from the article because it lacks sources. Then, WP:V (or WP:ATT) could be rephrased to suggest to readers encountering information that has remained unsourced for a long period of time that it should be removed, and such a banner placed on the article's talk page.  It doesn't even matter if the article ends up empty (although in that case the banner should probably be on the article page, not the talk page, so that readers don't get totally confused...)
* I also like the proposal above for a dated "unsourced article" system similar to the current cleanup system. JulesH 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:JulesH|JulesH]]