Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced GA/Nominations


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep. Xoloz 15:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Unreferenced GA/Nominations
This subpage is used for promoting to GA status unreferenced articles. The problem is that one of the requirements for GA status is that an article has to be properly sourced. Also, this, from the looks of it, is not a collaboration at all, but instead a way to promote unreferenced and uncited articles. It seems useless and should be deleted. Diez2 01:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmm, I gathered that the purpose was to find articles that would, were they not unreferenced, merit GA promotion (one assumes there are at least some articles the content of which might be readily sourced but for which references have been omitted), in order that good unsourced articles might become legitimate GA. It does not seem, to be sure, that the page has been used in any substantive way for collaboration on the improvement of such articles, but absent some compelling reason for deletion, I'm not sure I understand why we wouldn't simply keep the page (and perhaps tag it as historical) so that it might serve as a repository of those articles that should, simply with sourcing work, become GA- or FA-worthy.  Am I missing some pernicious uses of this page to organize editors to support the promotion of unsourced articles?  Joe 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This needs to be clarified, but the intent seems to be to identify good articles which need sources and source them. -Amarkov moo! 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's basically what I meant to say, except that I found it necessary to use seven times the words for one-seventh the effect. Joe 04:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Amarkov and Joe. Even fewer words! --- RockMFR 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Amarkov and Joe. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 23:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.