Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:29, 16 November 2006

Comment by Triona

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)

Two more minor issues. Unreferenced should be defined better, so that articles we'd have to completely gut of meaningful content under WP:V are deletable. A specific tagging template should be made, which will come into use after the addition of this criteria, and will be similar to orphanbot tagging or prod tagging in that it gives the date for deletion if the problems are unresolved. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 23:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not state clearly which sources are considered acceptable and which are not. Some people don't accept non-English language sources, although on many subjects I'm interested in English-language sources do not exist in principle. The only consequence of this proposal, if implemented, will be the proliferation of fake and univerifiable "sources" appended to the end of the article. Those who is active in mainspace know that such activity becomes increasingly common. If you want to eliminate unreferenced articles, the easiest and most effective way is to create a bot renaming "external links" to "online references". --Ghirla 08:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, you're right. I don't think this will be a cure-all. But people can game our other CSDs too, by putting in an untrue assertion of notability, by adding a fake fair use rationale or source or license, but the vast majority of pages these affect are ones with editors that add their work and never edit again. There is potential for gaming, and they'll have to go to AfD, but I expect the benefit to outweigh the bad. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't deny the merits of this proposal: 90% of newly-created articles is cruft. Nevertheless, we should clearly say which sources are considered reliable. Today, I had a lengthy discussion with a guy who is persuaded (citing WP:RS) that directly quoting chronicles in an article about a 10th-century ruler is not appropriate and that only secondary sources (read, biased interpretations by modern writers) are appropriate for Misplaced Pages. In my opinion, an 11th-century chronicle is a more reliable source than an early 20th-century interpretation. Another example. An article about Chumbo-Yumbo is translated from unsourced Swahili Misplaced Pages article. Although the translated material might be first-class, the trans-wiki translation should be deleted, no? Or perhaps the Swahili Misplaced Pages should be considered a reliable source, in the absence of English-language sources on the subject? In short, the proposal needs to be discussed at length, which I'm sort of uncapable now, having just been called an idiot (twice) and "Russian NeoNazi skinhead" (once). Regards, Ghirla 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • A historian writing in the 11th century is little different, in terms of the nature of the source as a secondary source, from a historian writing in the 20th century. But a wiki is not a good source, and Misplaced Pages is not a source at all. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Evaluating_sources. Uncle G 16:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Grafikm

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 11:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

100% agree on that one. -- Grafikm 19:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Comment by User:Dragons flight

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)

• Actually, I've found this impossible. References are erroneously regarded as a "cleanup" issue at AFD and PROD, and nominations for lack of sourcing are consistently shouted down, since they should be fixed, not deleted. This leaves us in the position of deciding to keep articles for which we idea or proof of their accuracy, neutrality, or existence. This is precisely not the reason that things like poor writing are not reasons for deletion, but our current deletion mechanisms don't handle this problem. Honestly, try nominating a recent article for deletion solely because of sourcing, regardless of its notability, and see what yu get. Note, this criterion is also designed to give the author a chance to fix the problem: AFD can't do that, since it ends in a "keep, but cleanup" decision, with no binding enforcement of that. It remains kept even if it never is cleaned up. Dmcdevit·t 06:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well if people look at it and say: "Yes, Misplaced Pages should have an article on this", then broadly speaking, I don't think it should be deleted. At the same time, I don't generally believe that always passing the buck is a good thing either. If there is going to be some process that deletes works solely for being unreferenced, then I think it needs to be such that it provides a substantial waiting period from the point at which the content was identified as problematic (not the point at which was created). That would give people, who might not otherwise appreciate that there was a problem, a chance to correct it. It would also give helpful minded Wikipedians a chance to peruse those articles looking for things to save. Like {{nsd}} and {{nld}}, it's not that we want to rush to delete the content, it is that we want to identify problems and have them be fixed without lingering on indefinitely. Also, I think "delete unless sources added" is a behavior we should strongly encourage over "keep and cleanup" when dealing with AFD. Dragons flight 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The struckout bit is because I misread the proposal to be 14 days after creation. My bad. I'll go away now. Dragons flight 07:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Antandrus

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)

Comment by User:KillerChihuahua

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)

Comment by Dijxtra

My opinion is that Misplaced Pages needs to be pragmatic at this point. Sure, if we enact this rule, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 04:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Dalbury

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)

Comment by Wknight94

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)

Comment by Lar

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)

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)

Lack of references as a cleanup and deletion issue

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. I most recently gave this advice to Sullivan.t.j (talk · contribs), 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 {{unreferenced}} notice works. See Template talk:Unreferenced#Effect_when_used_by_New_Page_Patrol. Uncle G 16:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by John Broughton

I think this is a good idea. I think that for every article "incorrectly" deleted by this policy, a hundred junk articles will be identified. And if an article is really needed, someone else will again create it, with at least one source.

I'd actually prefer something stronger: an automated block to prevent an article being CREATED without at least THREE sources within the article. I just don't believe that (a) there are a lot of needed articles still missing which (b) only an inexperienced/anon editor is interested in creating and (c) if the system warned the person creating an article that it was unacceptable without sources, he/she wouldn't - if the article was really needed - be able to quickly find them and get the article added. This is 2006 (about to be 2007), not 2004 - wikipedia's problem is now much more with junk articles than it is with missing articles. John Broughton | Talk 17:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest you have a look at the WP:MISSING project, in my experience finding three sources isn't always easy. In terms of strengthening this proposal, I agree with other editors that after a trial period, the grandfather clause could be removed. What are your thoughts on allowing the creation of a bot that automatically tags new unsourced articles?Addhoc 11:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. Yes, I think all new articles created without any source whatsoever should automatically get the tag, so that they disappear in 14 days if not even a single source is provided.

I'd also like an one-day block of any user who removes the tag (if it is in fact user-removable) but fails to add a source. (I have in mind something similar to the 3RR violation.) It would be even better if the system prevent tag removal until a source was added, of course. John Broughton | Talk 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If that becomes a problem we can always create something like the {{drmafd}} series of warnings. When I apply those users normally get the point pretty quickly. --ais523 15:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the existing {{drmspeedy}} tag could be used, this allows editors to be warned prior to being blocked. Addhoc 15:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Practise, principle and extent

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ${\displaystyle \int x\,dx=x^{2}/2+c.}$ (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)

• That integral most definitely does need a source. Misplaced Pages should not aim to be less than ISBN 1584883472, where every single article has references. Furthermore, I can look out of my window right now and see grass that isn't green.

  Once again, the chosen examples in fact prove that there are no exceptions to everything. Uncle G 00:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't really agree with the commentary on your subpage in its entirety, and I do think that the integral is as much an 'exception' as the addition (both statements are elementary once you know how to either add or integrate), because I hope noone would insist I sourced the fact if I used it in part of a derivation in an article. Green grass is an easy target: the alternative statement that "grass is not green" does not become acceptable if I find a news report of brown grass. It is merely a weak statement, lacking in generality, just as is the "grass is green" reciprocal. I am off topic some distance, now, however. -Splash - tk 17:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Just looking in Integral finds a source for the integral, http://www.lightandmatter.com/calc/calc.pdf (it's at the bottom of page 51, stated in a slightly different form). As for 1+1=2, try looking at page 4 of http://www.math.umn.edu/~jodeit/course/Peano.pdf. As you can see, it's not too hard to find sources for trivial statements such as these. --ais523 09:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• To address your first point about the probability admin misapplication to include reliability, I intentionally skirted the issue of reliability of sources (the question is "sources: yes or no?") because that's murky ground. Reliabilty of sources is a content issue. An admin has no more discretion over that kind of judgment call, and shouldn't really be making that decision. We might move in that direction in the future, but I'm more skeptical than you that the first people who tryit won't be skinned alive and made examples of. In any case, as Radiant! suggests we could easily put a clause in to specify that an article with any source at all should be evaluated by the community at PROD/AFD, not speedied.
  • Yes, and I agree that the lowest bar is the only one that should be applied. However, those who are fans of Common Sense, The Right Thing and related euphemisms are not known for particularly caring about such fine details, and nor are they particularly concerned with being skinned alive. (Witness the speedying of the cookie articles under G11 just recently.) Still, misapplication would remain a problem just about however the wording were worded. -Splash - tk 17:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• You have an interesting point regarding the potential that there could be articles that don't need sources. I would point out that no admin must speedy an article that fits any CSD criterion, but that that they must read the article and then they may do so if necessary. I guess I'm still curious whether, if we assume that fundamentally sourceless statements exist, "It is entirely possible that an entire shortish article could be written out of facts that are fundamental to a field". Could you really construct an entire article that way, and not just statements within an article? Surely an assertion of notability still needs a source in every case? Dmcdevit·t 10:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The proposed Misplaced Pages:Attribution, which is envisioned to replace WP:V and WP:NOR contains several notes to "use common sense". It contains explicit exceptions for simple calculations and trivial deductions that do not present a novel viewpoint. There is consensus that we don't need explicit sources for every facts that only a troll would dispute.
  • I prefer to think of the situation discussed above as an instance where potential sources are so numerous and obvious that citation would serve no purpose. I find it hard to imagine the utility of an article that consists only of such material. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You are probably right. I am worried about articles created today without sources being ok and kept on their value (which is non-zero whatever Jimbo says) compared with the same articles created 14 days from now having somehow zero value. -Splash - tk 17:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, probably not, no, it was more a thought experiment to clarify the questions of extent and effect. A halfway-house is Scalar-vector-tensor decomposition in which a reasonable number of the textual statements probably don't appear in the source, and that source, whilst fundamental, is more a token gesture. Would we want to delete that in its earliest form? This raises an important procedural point: the reference that is required need not be inlined. -Splash - tk 17:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Radiant

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)

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)

Note: See also WT:CSD#Suggested BLP Criterion. (Radiant) 11:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Yes. That keeps it simple and clear. This proposal is not a cure-all, but it should make the job of getting Misplaced Pages properly sourced a little easier. -- Donald Albury 14:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Radiant, a good idea and in due course the grandfather clause should be removed. Addhoc 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Robert A West

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. An unmarried man is biographied as married. The assertion is not defamatory, but I think everyone would understand the potential for inconvenience.
4. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• If you are "heartily sick" of bad AFD arguments, then read Misplaced Pages:AfD Patrol and start doing something about them. For every "Keep. All this needs is a reliable source, which I am sure must exist.", point out that that argument does not cut the mustard when it comes to countering the assertion that an article is unverifiable, and that the only counterarguments are sources, sources, sources. For every "Delete. This article cites no sources." point out that the editor needs to actually put in the effort of doing the research, because articles are only deletable for being unverifiable if both they cite no sources and reasonable efforts on the parts of editors to turn up sources come up empty-handed.

  Expanding CSD criteria is not the way to get people to make AFD arguments that conform to our Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 12:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I already try to do this in my own way, but I was unaware of the AFD Patrol. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Mangojuice

I like the idea. A couple of notes: I wouldn't want to see people trying to get articles deleted by using this criterion along with removing sources (even ones they feel are unreliable). This should be made clear somehow, but I'm not sure of the best way. Also, why 14 days as opposed to any other amount? I would figure 7 would be enough to find one source. Finally, this should come with an automatic undelete clause, sort of the way WP:PROD does. If any user wishes an article deleted under this criterion to be undeleted, and has a source, any admin should be willing to undelete it. Though work without sources isn't valuable enough to keep around anymore, it should be made available afterwards if people start working on it. Anyone who deletes a page under this criterion should watchlist it, and if a new version appears with sources, they should make the deleted version available. Mangojuice 15:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Be wary of adding that much instruction creep to the proposal. Keep the proposal short, or it won't be sweet. CSD already comes with an auto-undelete (after a sanity check), it's just that fewer CSDs actually pass said sanity check. Consider your new version of the proposal:

1. Check if the article is 14 days old.
2. Check it hasn't been vandalised.
3. Check it has no sources, nor any that can be reverted to.
4. Delete the article.
5. Watchlist it.
6. Check every edit to it subsequently.
7. Delete if no sources.
8. If sources, undelete history.
9. (implicitly)Leave a talk page note somewhere, probably on both the article and user pages.

It approximately doubles the load. -Splash - tk 17:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on WT:CSD

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 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this page should be moved to a Misplaced Pages 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)

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 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

For lack of a better idea: Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles. Dmcdevit·t 08:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Pmanderson

Jimbo's quotes relate specifically to unsourced articles on living persons; one of them explicitly. We should indicate this.

I agree that this is a well-meant proposal; but I foresee, if it is implemented, a repeat of certain recent unpleasantnesses. All it takes is a handful of admins to construe this as "Delete all unsourced articles now; Jimbo said so!" to produce vast deletions. If one of them belongs to the "The only real citations are in-line citations" movement, it will be much worse. We should take steps to avoid this misunderstanding before doing anything to make this discussion more official. The present notes are a good start, and confirm that the intention of this proposal is entirely sensible. Septentrionalis 00:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The first Jimbo quote may be less on-topic, but he states "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information aboutliving persons" so it's not as if he's misquoted, I think. You're free to edit the page, by the way. It seems there is already developing support on this talk page for the notion that admin overextensions are not welcome. Ambiguity in the form of any source at all that an admin questions should be taken to AFD or PROD. Dmcdevit·t 08:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the second one is part of the same discussion, isn't it? In any case, this is what lawyers call obiter dictum, not a decree.

As for editing this: thank you. I have on the quotes; I would have edited more sweepingly if I saw how to clarify this further. Septentrionalis 19:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Shreshth91

I fully support this idea. With increase in the size and popularity of Misplaced Pages, 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)

Comment by ais523

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)

Implementation?

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)

• None of your quesions really seem new: the process already esits. It will likely work as we'd naturally imagine it to work on a wiki. Anyone may tag an offending article they notice. Anyone may add a reference and remove the tag, or remove the tag if a reference is already there. If anyone wrongly removes a valid tag, it should be reverted, just as removing any valid, say, {{db-a1}} without fixing it would be reverted. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be to I4: anyone can remove the tag when an image source is added, but if they remove it without doing so, they should be reverted. A "blatantly inadequate" source is a content judgment, and should be dealt with using the current means (AFD/PROD/cleanup), but this CSD would nevertheless catch many with no source at all that would languish in the current system without anyone watching them. Even tagging them without watching is better than what happens now (typically, nothing). Dmcdevit·t 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at an implementation: {{nosourcedel}} (which presumably needs a spiffy abbreviation (nsd is taken) if this becomes accepted); it's based on prod. As always, feedback is welcome. --ais523 10:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. Maybe the naming could be in line with the other {db-} templates? I'd go for {subst:db-nosource}. And perhaps make the template a little bit smaller and less obtrusive? After all, we might be seeing them all over the place in a short while... Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought about db-naming the template, but all the db-tags seem to be for immediate deletion (I5 isn't immediate; compare {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} (the 'timeout tag') to {{db-i5}} (which causes deletion after the timeout)). As for being obtrusive, it's quite important this isn't mistaken for a cleanup tag, and the obtrusion is what's wanted (WARNING! WARNING! THE ARTICLE WILL BE DELETED IF YOU DON'T SOURCE IT!), in the hope that a user who's created an article will see it if they miss the other warnings (it could be applied very quickly as part of newpage patrol). --ais523 11:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Template looks ok to me, would prefer a name such as {PROD-NS} or {db-ns}, but that isn't very important. Addhoc 11:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll put a redirect in from {{nsdel}}. --ais523 12:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If the problem to be addressed is articles without any cited sources that "languish in the current system without anyone watching them", then the solution is to make Category:Articles lacking sources more usable by those who would like to patrol unreferenced articles and watch them, by having a 'bot do the same categorization by date with {{unreferenced}} that Pearle (talk · contribs) does with {{cleanup}} and MarshBot (talk · contribs) does with {{linkless}}. Uncle G 12:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• No, the problem is that the person best positioned to provide sources (the person who wrote the article) often doesn't, and it's hard to find the sources later. --ais523 12:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, that's not what Dmcdevit wrote above. Please read it again. The solution to that problem is use of {{unreferenced}} by New Pages Patrol, as demonstrated by Template talk:Unreferenced#Effect_when_used_by_New_Page_Patrol. Uncle G 13:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem I'm dealing with is different from Dmcdevit's, but we're both supporting the same solution. In response to your NP point, it would look a bit silly if MediaWiki:Newarticletext (or some other appropriate interface message) said 'Please give sources for the article you create, or you risk having an {{unref}} tag placed on it by New Page patrollers'. The problem I'm addressing was flagged up on WT:CSD. --ais523 13:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You're creating a straw man. MediaWiki:Newarticletext doesn't need to say that. Moreover, as I have already pointed out, the solution to your problem is use of {{unreferenced}} by New Pages Patrol. It works in practice. I linked to several examples examples of the process in action. Uncle G 01:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Undeletion

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)

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)

Thoughts from badlydrawnjeff

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)

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)

If that's the case, I haven't seen evidence of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree that this is 'completely unnecessary'. I'd argue the opposite, that it is completely necessary if Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, jguk 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No single source is inherently "reliable." We can't expect Misplaced Pages 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)

At present university undergraduates are often warned not to use Misplaced Pages as it is not reliable (Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages shouldn't become the most reliable encyclopedia - we have enough people working on it, and we're not too far behind Encyclopaedia Britannica already. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

The flip side of this proposal is that everyone creating articles will soon get to know that they always add their references. I imagine this will happen very quickly. We have to allow for undeletions to allow sources to be added later, as from time to time even the best editors will forget to add them, but that's now provided for in the policy.

I'm not really sure what the rationale for keeping entirely unsourced (and therefore unbelievable) articles in Misplaced Pages. If they can be sourced, source them - it will make a tenfold improvement. If they can't be sourced, why do you (or anyone else) want to read them? jguk 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by BlankVerse

Learning how to do proper referencing on the Misplaced Pages is, quite frankly, a pain in the tochis. The minimum requirement should not be a single reference (by that criteria, if applied retroactively, a big chuck of the Misplaced Pages would get deleted), but should be, instead, a single External link to a reliable source (not directly connected to the topic if it is a company, person, or school).

The second change should be 14 days after a message is left on the article creator's talk page. 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with IfD-style mandatory Talk-page warnings; as for the 'external link' condition, the problem is that too much discretion would be needed (speedy criteria are meant to be objective and uncontestable). The requirement's not necessarily for a reference in the {{cite book}} sense, but for a statement saying what the source of the information is (just like should be provided with images at the moment). --ais523 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: A link to a relevant webpage is, perforce, a source. I am not sure what distinction is being drawn here. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, a webpage is (or may be) a source, but not every source need to be a webpage. There are still people out here who use those old-fashioned things, you know, what were they called, books. A minimum requirement of external links would be terribly wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not an external link. This CSD doesn't care about formatting or citation type, it just cares whether the References section is blank or not. If you got it from a webpage, put that in the references section. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy now requires a reference section with at least one entry. It seems pretty clear that an external link without "ref" tags around it is not a reference/footnote, even though it's a source.

I think that is a mistake. I think the policy should require at least one external link OR one reference/footnote, so that new editors aren't forced to learn WP:CITE. (I think footnotes are important to reduce the impact of link rot, but that's another matter.)

We should start small with a new policy like this - err on the conservative side. If the first implementation works well, then an expansion can be considered. If the policy is too broad, it risks not being adopted at all, or being reversed. Starting small would mean NOT tagging articles that have an external link, even if there is no reference/notes section. John Broughton | Talk 19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to use CITE to put a link in the references section. External Links are a "See also," not a reference. Just a URL in the references section would be sufficient. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Negative Comment by GRBerry

Keep in mind the basic standards for a criteria for speedy deletion, from Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Comments from Pengo: This is the internet.

There are a large number of false or misleading assertions made in the text of this proposal:

False underlying assumptions

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 Misplaced Pages? A very large proportion of it focuses on the fact/perception that on the whole Misplaced Pages 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 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Inherent contradiction

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:

1. You are saying people are creating articles.
2. You are saying a different set of people are adding references to those articles.
3. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Scaring away newbies

Requiring referencing is like holding up a big sign to any and all potential new Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages any longer, and doesn't bother with the next 99 articles he or she may have written. —Pengo 00:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

'Writing a your first article should not be difficult' - I agree. But it isn't that simple. In the case of most problems (lack of wikification for example), it's trivial for another editor to sort the problem out. In the case of sourcing, it's often only possible to get an accurate result if the sources are given by the same writer who wrote the article; the original writer can provide sources trivially (I don't care whether it's a {{cite web}} masterpiece or a little note saying 'I got this from (name of some book)' at the bottom of the page, and neither does the CSD). If you don't believe me, just look through the WP:AFC archives for anything with a green background, and see how anons are sourcing things. --ais523 08:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a trivial reason. It's critical to a reference work to have references, and the Verifiability policy is one of our most important core policies. And it's not saying f-off, anyone that knows what they are talking about will know adding references is important for a reference work built anonymously over the internet. - Taxman 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Another fugly 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages un-fun wouldn't achieve a great deal, after all. Splash - tk 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about "Source what you write :)"? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Carrot, not Stick

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 00:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I would certainly support changing the stub and unsourced message to something like that. That way we can come at it from both sides, drastically improving the sourcing of new articles through this CSD and aiding the sourcing of existing articles through a more useful and friendly message. Not to say the latter will be a revolutionary change in effectiveness, but we need to try everything. - Taxman 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

On the quotes given

"If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Misplaced Pages 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 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Is unreliable information good information? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Comment from Mallanox

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Reaction from the field

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles. -- Donald Albury 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Two points

Two points to consider:

1. Approximately 80% of all Misplaced Pages articles are unsourced.
2. Articles have only a minor tendancy to become sourced over time.

--Carnildo 05:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Wagner, Mark (2006-09-01). "Misplaced Pages: The 100". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 2006-11-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Killing a flea with a bomb.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Requested articles would probably achieve a better request than placing it in Misplaced Pages. 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 {{unref}} and {{stub}} 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, Misplaced Pages 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 {{unref}} on it, or {{afd}} 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)

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)

If you edit out the non-conforming information, you have compliant articles. If you edit out almost everything in an article, you have a compliant stub. Compliant articles are good, compliant stubs are less good, but are still good. It is that simple.

If you question the value of having an article on the topic in question, you have a topic issue. That is what AfD, prod and CSD are for. Topic issues, answering the question "should this topic have an article in Misplaced Pages?"

Otherwise you have a content issue. Speedy deletion is very seldom appropriate for content issues. Editing is. Lack of sources is a content issue. Speedy deletion's role in content issues as proposed on the project page should not be expanded.

Bureaucratic hell is having interwoven rules and guidelines for everything instead of just being courteous and cooperative, yet persistent in pursuit of the project's broad goals. This proposal weaves CSD deeply into questions of content. Unfocused 07:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• So, what if editing out the non-conforming information would leave you with not a stub, but a blank article? That is the case this CSD is intended to cover. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• As Robert says. This isn't intended to be a wide-ranging proposal on articles and verifiability. We're only talking about articles with no source at all. "edit out the non-conforming information, you have compliant articles" is obfuscation. The only issue here is entirely non-conforming articles. Editing out the non-conforming information then is deletion. We have the same premise, and I can't make out why you disagree. Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• I suspect Unfocused's fears are similar to mine. This is a licence for block deletion of masses of articles irrespective of verifiability. If someone can't be arsed to find a source, BANG, it's gone. There are already far too many deletionist rules within Misplaced Pages and far too improvementalist ones. Mallanox 14:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That comment seems a bit strange; this isn't 'irrespective of verifiability', it's about enforcing verifiability. WP:V says "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source."; it's a bit misnamed, really, because it implies that things have to be verified. The point is that anyone reading an article must be able to find its source; that's the only thing that Misplaced Pages's credibility is based on. Remember, this is only for new articles, and the existence of this criterion is what will cause the sources to be added in the first place. Would you really support the retention of articles which were created without references to sources? --ais523 14:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If I may clarify, I meant that there is a distinction between verifiability and verified. What we are talking about is deletion of what is not verified, not what is unverifiable. Mallanox 23:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The BANG part is misleading. BANG is a tag sitting on the article and the article sitting in a category for 14 days asking someone to legitimize it - and I'll bet plenty of people would relish the opportunity to hang out in that category legitimizing articles. That's not so much a BANG as a polite tap. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps BANG is hyperbole but the point is valid. What happens when the category gets backlogged, there aren't enough people to check all of the articles and they start being deleted for no fault of their own? We've all found articles with tags that have been there for months. 14 days tick by pretty fast especially if its a page no-one is watching. Mallanox 23:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Agree, there would have to be an equivalent of WP:PRODSUM set up and a new project smilar to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling, but that would be possible. Addhoc 15:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This entire line of worry is unfounded. this would only apply to articles with zero sources whatsoever. Any article containing any sourced information would be exempt. "Stubbing" an article means reducing it to the small amount of sourced information, but these articles have no sources, so there would be nothing left to include in a stub! Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by nae'blis

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)

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 17:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Comment by Necrothesp

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)

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)

Indeed, but they are rare enough for me to be bothered far more about the carving up of Misplaced Pages by the deletionists than by the handful of plausible-sounding hoax articles. -- Necrothesp 19:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

(back over) It's a start, though. SS-N-15 had a wrong yield on the warhead (20 kt, instead of 200), and I had to go digging to find the correct answer. With a source, I can just go and see "oh hey, that's a typo" and know what's right. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I don't think anyone claims it is, but it's a start. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

14 days is less deletionist than five days

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

It wouldn't work the same way. Prod is very easy, this is not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it more difficult than prod? - Taxman 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 21:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps, but that applies just as much to this process. - Taxman 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, as I've already pointed out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

comment from Night Gyr (talk/Oy)

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--{{unreferenced}} 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 {{nsd}}.

Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Another comment: Our longstanding base requirement for notability has been coverage in independent, reliable sources. What better way to prove it than cite those sources in the article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Something I haven't seen addressed: How can we know added information is reliable unless it's sourced? Do we want to allow people to add unreliable information? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• How can we know added information is reliable if it is sourced? We can't, unless we consult the source; and then we will often be surprised to find that the source says something quite different.
• How do I know simply connected space is right? Because I know what a simply connected space is, and that's it.
• How can you know? By relying on the consensus and good faith of the editors + Splash and myself. This is the lowest grade of confirmation; but it's not nothing. Septentrionalis 02:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Bkonrad

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

See here, here, and here. Instead of leaving unsourced (and therefore unreliable) material in[REDACTED] with a "source needed" tag, he says we might as well remove it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(back over) And blank articles are deletable, and under this proposal any editor who provides a source can have the article undeleted, so the material can come back. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I strongly oppose any proposal which can be interpreted as Night Gyr interprets this one. Septentrionalis 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'm afraid that I also must disagree with Night Gyr's interpretation above. Removing content is not at all the same as deleting a page. Reverting an edit preserves the page-history in a way that any future reader/editor can review and, if necessary, correct. It requires no special admin-powers to improve the article. Deleting a page, on the other hand, secures the page-history from general view and does require special permissions to reverse. It dramatically reduces the number of users who would have the knowledge and ability to improve the project in the case of an unsourced but sourcable page. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Note that "speedy" deletion doesn't really mean a deletion is fast (if that makes sense) but that any administrator may delete an article that qualifies without debate. This is why this would be considered speedy, just like the various image criteria. It's really semantics, though, since PROD works the same way. I'm not sure if there's any use spending time on deciding whether the concept should be called speedy or not. Dmcdevit·t 23:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts of a compromise wording

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 {{sourcedeletion}} 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:

1. It maximizes the amount of eyes that see the article before it's deleted.
2. 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."
3. 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)

• ...Slap a historical tag? It's barely been in discussion for three days. The trouble with your proposal is that it says to go to AfD...which is exactly what we already do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Right now, nothing (thankfully) forces anything into AfD. We simply do not delete due to lack of sources. This is a change to that. And yes, historical as opposed to outright delete. Kill it with fire as far as I'm concerned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Unless that's changed to attained then this amounts to nothing more than a massive increase in overhead. If it's so important to include the given material people can accomplish that by helping to find sources for it. - Taxman 19:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is already a massive increase in overhead, I don't see what this has to do with anyhting.
• If it goes to AfD, the only way it should be kept is if sources are provided (not if sources could be provided). But that's not really AfD. I do think it would be a good idea to have a maintenance page for to-be-deleted articles that it should be easy to find sources for. --Interiot 19:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be against the maintenence page, but the 'send to AfD' is meant to be a compromise to those who can't get rid of good content fast enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And thus the extra overhead. If the change is made that the article will be deleted if there are no sources added then the extra overhead will be worth it because it should help aid in finding sources. If we create a place with a sense of urgency to find more sources for articles I can't think of anything more valuable. The last half of your statement isn't helpful. No one is trying to get rid of good content and you know it. It's just that unsourced content isn't good content because the reader has no way of knowing. The other side people are missing is that once this policy becomes well known, the number of articles that fall under it will reduce. Just think of how many headlines will be generated when Misplaced Pages shuts it's metaphorical doors to articles with no sources. Our percieved reliability will go up and so will the actual reliability because more of the type of articles we really need will be submitted. - Taxman 21:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Though maybe it would be a good idea to make it mandatory to run grandfathered articles through AfD before deleting them, just because there's quite a few unsourced articles with a long edit history. --Interiot 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We could say that articles that have an edit history of more than 50 are exempt. Addhoc 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

• One solution would be to permit appeals of the tag to AfD: "I know simply connected space is good; I could just add a random topology textbook to it, but it's not my field. Should we really delete this?" Septentrionalis 00:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I like the compromise of sending it to an AFD type discussion at the end of the period, and running that pseudo-AFD discussion about the sourcing of the article. One of my two major concerns was that this tries to move the culture too fast, and thus would inherently lead to a large number of controversial deletions. We don't need more activity at WP:DRV in the amount I fear that this would bring as a criteria for speedy deletion. Using a pseudo-AFD has several advantages: 1) it changes the culture more slowly, 2) it puts more eyes on the article/subject prior to disposal, and 3) it gives more time and discussion, creating less of a WP:BITE problem.
• Iff that is working well after a while, we could move to a pseudo-prod, and iff that works well eventually to a pseudo-CSD. But starting as a pseudo-CSD is starting at the wrong end of the speed chain. GRBerry 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think just dated tags with a message to notify people who add unsourced information and point people to WP:V and WP:CITE would be a great start. If editors know that they shouldn't be writing articles without sources, even stubs, then they will add them in the future and the problem will shrink even before we implement any deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Messedrocker

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)

A list, like the AfD log, might be better; categories aren't watchable. Septentrionalis 20:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Strict interpretation

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)

I assert the following text is the meaning of may.

• "may be deleted" It is neither required nor desirable to nominate all articles which qualify under this policy; it is a matter of judgment whether an article is evidently sourceable.

Should we write a tag for the purpose?

Please discuss. Septentrionalis 21:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

See User:Uncle_G/On_sources_and_content#There_are_no_exceptions_to_everything Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please give me an example of an article that doesn't need a single source? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

Objections

Arguing for the inclusion of unsourced information in[REDACTED] -- That isn't a strawman, that's exactly what opposition to this policy advocates. Why? These are what I see:

• Too many pre existing articles -- this ignores preexisting articles, only applies to newly created content.
• Will lead to deletion of good content -- unsourced content isn't good content, and we're going to set up a system to give many chances for sources to be added before an article gets deleted (two week wait, listed in a log, etc.)
• Will be abused to delete articles subjectively -- CSD has been abused before -- G11 was used to delete a bunch of valid articles on product when they first came out, but this one is pretty clear cut. no source = delete, source = no delete. That's less of a judgement call than advertising or notability claims.

Are there any I'm missing? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to this policy does not mean that the opponents are all "arguing for the inclusion of unsourced information in wikipedia". Many of the opponents are merely arguing that speedy-deletion (even with all the proposed qualifiers and controls) is not the optimal process for doing so - that other mechanisms could be better at either finding sources or removing unsourcable information or that those other mechanisms would have a lower probability of unintended consequences.

I also suspect from the comments above that a fair number of experienced users would be very uncomfortable with the sentiment expressed in your premise that "unsourced content isn't good content". In context, your premise comes across as "unsourced content is axiomatically bad content". The fact that something is not yet sourced does not mean that it is unsourcable or that the project will be irreparably damaged by the delay. Rossami (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The main issues of unreliability come about with content that can't be supported by sources. Entirely unsourced articles are obviously unreliable. I've learned a lot of things from them, but I wouldn't trust them for anything, and I can't go anywhere more reliable to check without a source indicated.

This policy wouldn't remove content that's already here and just didn't get sourced the first time, it just calls for all new content to be sourced, which makes sense as I said in the last section. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Short version: unsourced = unreliable. unreliable = Bad Thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless an alternative is proposed that is equally successful in removing unsourced new articles or ensuring they are sourced, then yes, opposition to this does have the effect of "arguing for the inclusion of unsourced information in wikipedia". The project isn't terribly damaged by the lone unsourced statement, but on the whole it is of vastly lower quality than it could be due to the extremely high percentage of unsourced articles. Again, as in the other section, consider the power of everyone knowing that only sourced articles are allowed in. - Taxman 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, though, opposition to the proposal to delete any articles containing unsourced information means that someone thinks the article should not be deleted. It does not mean that the unsourced should not be dealt with in some way, perhaps by editing it out. It's just the nearly-nuclear option of deleting the entire article that's getting opposed, and that for a variety of reasons not all relying on a desire to see unsourced information in articles. Splash - tk 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The crux comes down to articles that have no sources. Is it acceptable to blank the article until sources can be found? - Taxman 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's acceptable to stub them. We do it with WP:OFFICE stuff all the time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think you're accurately representing the opposition. We're not advocating unsourced material, we're opposed to wholesale deletion of it and further expansion of administrator power to delete information without consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I was careful to say that you're not advocating unsourced material, but I did correctly state that arguing against this proposal does have the same effect, more unsourced information in articles, unless an equally effective alternative is produced. - Taxman 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not at all. We simply oppose deletion of entire articles as part of the battle against unsourced information. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• That the above mentioned is the effect is really easy to establish. So much so I'm surprised you would try to deny it. - Taxman 04:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• So anyone who disagrees is a heretic? How many politicians have used the old "Whoever isn't with us is against us" chestnut? I disagree with this proposal because of its destructive nature. Improve articles, don't destroy them. Articles that are unverifiable can be legitimately deleted. Deleting unverified articles is, in my opinion, short-sighted and very high-handed for a project that relies on volunteers. Mallanox 00:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by PBS

• 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)
  • This doesn't care about reliability, just whether a source is provided at all. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well no, what it really cares about is reliability, but as a safety latch, it only acts on articles with no sources at all. - Taxman 23:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • For a source to be provided it must be reliable. Othewise this suggestion is not worth having. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• What about short stub articles. I see no reason why they have to have source. After all they can be a round about request for a more detailed article.--Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Stubs contain some information. Information has to come from somewhere. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Tagging won't be automatic. A stub that has no sources will probably not be tagged for a couple of weeks, and then it will have another 14 days to grow into a one-source superstub. If the stub creator doesn't have a source and doesn't know where to look, why should we trust his stub? Robert A.West (Talk) 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • We have articles tagged for CSD within minutes of their creation. New pages patrol will be all over this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• On the contrary, WP:V#Sources of dubious reliability (one of our most important policies) covers it. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (a guideline) expounds on it more, of course. If this becomes a CSD, I think we'd want to create a simplified version of WP:RS for new users to quickly look over.
• I don't think any reference should be allowed... people shouldn't be able to trivially game the system by tossing in a random link that has little to nothing to do with the article. Common sense can be used, especially if it's extremely obvious someone is trying to game the system. --Interiot 01:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What definition of "reference" do you want to apply? It should satisfy the CSD conditions objective and uncontestable. Septentrionalis 02:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • One that is covered by a definition in the Misplaced Pages Policy pages and AFAICT this is a very active area of debate at the moment. I think that defintion has to be decided before one concludes a debate on this proposal. "First catch your hare" --Philip Baird Shearer 08:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The verification that the information in a stub is valid, can come from links to other Wikipidia articles, and internal links do not count as sources. For example think of an timeline which starts as little more than a disambiguation page, providing the links to the items include the date put into the timeline there is no need to provide an alternative source. BTW would this suggestion as it stands mark disambiguation pages for deletion as they do not have sources? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Law of unintended consequences, and other realities

Ais523 did a search though Random articles, and came up with two "unsourced articles", which exemplify the problems with this proposal.

• John Powers (poet) is a vanity article, and I support Ais's prod. But it's not unreferenced: the text contains two external links, partly substantiating it. It's not subject to this CSD, but it's c;ear that Ais would have tagged it. What happened here could happen to a better article; and will, if this passes.
• Mirko Derenčin is a more serious case. It contains two facts: he was one of the Bans of Croatia in 1493, and he died at the Battle of Krbava field. The battle has an article, which mentions his death, and has a source; a general history of Croatia.

Now consider the following all-too-plausible scenario (A):

• New article patrol tags Mirko Derenčin with {{source or die}}.
• Loyal Croat, watching the page, does the research I did, and then copies the history from one article to the other, without consulting it first. He is very likely, but not certainly, right to conclude that Mirko's banship and death are in fact mentioned; and if LC is in Croatia, he may not have access to the book in 14 days.
• LC removes the tag.

Has Misplaced Pages benefitted from this exchange? Not really; the article is still unchecked, and it looks better than it is; and it may be bearing a misleading source.

How often will such things happen? Any proposal like this is a balance between several possibilities; two more for Mirko are:

B: Mirko Derenčin was in fact written from a sound source, which was mislaid when the article on Bans of Croatia was divided into separate articles, No one is watching it, and it is deleted.

C:Mirko is being watched by someone who can source it in a hurry. The source he can find right now is in Croatian.

A is a definite, small, loss; B is a real loss; C is a gain, but we would have had a greater gain by tagging it {{unreferenced}} and waiting. We should consider such things before enacting policies and guidelines, rather than assuming the best result (everyone is scared into sourcing every article they start) will happen automatically. It won't. Septentrionalis 02:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree. Thanks for taking the time to reason that through. Mallanox 02:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No major loss, it can be recovered trivially. I find it really funny that people are willing to say be patient, articles will eventually get sources (even though it's easy to establish that happens extremely slowly on the whole, much much more slowly than articles get created in fact), but stand agast that we should wait a bit longer for an article to be created (or recreated) with sources. In any process there will be some errors. We already knew that, so pointing out an error does nothing. Should we can the whole deletion process because there are some errors? Sure, then we'll have an untold flood of junk. Same goes here, instead we just need to flip the switch to avoid the junk instead of failing to do so out of fear. Eventualism swings both ways. - Taxman 05:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is little I disagree with more than the perennial assumption that undeletion is trivial. It isn't; and if no-one is watching Mirko Derenčin to know it's gone, who will have reason to rewrite the article? Septentrionalis 05:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fake sources

I just thought of something else: false sources.

User A makes a new article about, say, an obscure piece of art. User B on newpage patrol sees that there's no source, and tags it. User A freaks out, and decides he's going to put "The Obscure Book of Art, by Alfred P. Artist, 1943" under "references." Tag removed, everyone runs along on their merry way.

I'd like to think this wouldn't happen, but how would this possibly be dealt with? Especially when "any source" can be used. Hell, why not a webpage that never really existed? The possibilities here are unfortunately endless, and we know what lengths people will go to in order to justify their article's existence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Because this could happen anyway, when the thing goes up for deletion under any other criteria. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It could, yes, but the current situation doesn't encourage false sourcing. Currently, if you AfD due to lack of sources, many many many people see it and vouch for it. In the proposed one, two people see it and it likely never gets questioned again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But in the current situation it'd never get questioned ever. If someone wouldn't bother to bring it to AfD now, why would they before? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And under the current situation, there is very little incentive ever to make a fake source. Unless the article is heading for FA, in which case it may well get caught, there is no requirement for one. This proposal combines maximum incentive and minimum checking, since the admin who evaluates the {{source or die}} (assuming one does) will say, "Yep, that's a reference; I never heard of Alfred P. Artist, but what do I know about decorated pin-cushions?". Septentrionalis 05:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If we put in place a process which encourages the addition of false references, the the credibility of Misplaced Pages will be underminded the first time a journalist writes an article on Misplaced Pages which highlights a few articles with this problem, particularly if they can point to a process within Misplaced Pages which makes it systemic. At the moment as Septentrionalis points out there is no incentive for people to do this, so usually the compliant is that an article on Misplaced Pages is unreliable because it is not sourced. If it becomes articles on Misplaced Pages are unreliable because the references my be fake then we have a much more serious problem as it can not be fixed by just adding true sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)