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

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)

Wikipedia 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 -трёп-  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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia article. Although the translated material might be first-class, the trans-wiki translation should be deleted, no? Or perhaps the Swahili Wikipedia 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  -трёп-  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 Wikipedia is not a source at all.  See User:Uncle G/On sources and content. 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  (AutoGRAF)  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  (AutoGRAF)  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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia needs to be pragmatic at this point. Sure, if we enact this rule, Wikipedia will lose some of it's important additions because they were unreferenced. So, yes, we loose some potential content and contributors. But, what we get is that in another few months when we reach 2 million articles, we will have half a million new referenced articles. Maybe poorly referenced, but we will have a starting point. Which of the two is more valuable for a encyclopaedia?

I have seen a lot of plain text articles which are probably copyvio just copy/pasted into Wikipedia (I've just checked the newly created pages: of 10 new pages 3 were unwikified, unsourced plain text). Sure, even this articles have potential. But, after having 1.5 million articles, do we desperately need those? Or do we desperately need referencing?

Sure, some of the contributors might try to game the system. But, it's not like the system is not open for gaming at this moment. And, we do not see all that much of gaming. Sure, it happens once in a while. But not all that often (at least from my perspective). I do not see why this rule would be an exception. We'll get some false references. But, again, we gain (1 - some/all)*100% of (poorly or not) referenced stub articles.

Some newbies might decide to leave Wikipedia feeling bitten by this rule. But, again, it's not like we don't have AfD or prod or copyvio to bite newbies... this new rule will be just one more on the list.

So, these are the potential drawbacks of the rule. Potential gain form this rule is a complete shift of perspective. I think that Wikipedians need to start referencing their articles. Not just new ones, but the old ones too. When people create a new articles, they always think of wikilinks, of categories and of wikifying. If a semiexpirienced contributor encounters plain text article, he will wikify it, categorise it and add wikilinks. We have to change a state of mind of Wikipedians to accept referencing as another thing you routinely do to articles. And, I feel that this rule is a an excellent way to start. --Dijxtra 11:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You make a great point about the balance and this being in the right direction for the right reasons. I've said for a long time, we don't need just any material anymore, we need good material with references. I'm not sure we could get this through, but it is well worth a shot. It fits well with Jimbo's desire to improve articles over adding new ones. - Taxman Talk 04:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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 important part of our Deletion policy An article is only deletable for being unverifiable if both of the following conditions hold: 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 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 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 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, which explains how if one cites sources one avoids a range of difficulties, from questions of notability to unstable content, works when handed out to the kind of editors that are going to benefit Wikipedia. I most recently gave this advice to, for example. Xe went through many of xyr past articles, and they now have references and should remain far more stable against major content fluctuations and proof against nomination for deletion. Similarly, liberal, and insistent, use of the unreferenced notice works. See Template talk:Unreferenced. Uncle G 16:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article cites no (supporting) sources at all.
 * Reasonable searches for sources on the parts of several editors turn up no sources.

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 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)
 * I strongly disagree with this. Automatically blocking people for "not the right content" (as opposed to just vandalism) and blocking people without warnings (unless they've already been blocked for the same thing) will get people to start accusing Wikipedia of elitism and strongarm tactics.  "Wikipedia's problem is not with missing articles" - if you're in the main WP editor demographic, maybe.  See WP:CSB.  ColourBurst 15:42, 17 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. Wikipedia articles are little use to a reader without their sources (even if the reader is unlikely to check the sources if they just want a quick answer). Is it really true that no article is better than one without a source? Or was that just Jimbo on the mailing list doing what he does on the mailing list? I suppose this relies on the assumption that in some sense Wikipedia probably has most all the articles it ought to have (it really doesn't, though, particularly in specialist areas) and that we can therefore justify the removal, rather than the editing of poor work. I'm personally not sure that I'm persuaded of that balance yet.

Extent: some things don't need references. 1+1=2 doesn't, and neither does the entirely less obvious $$\int x \,dx = x^2/2 +c.$$ (WP:V used to be congnisant of the point but has been masticated to pieces.) It is entirely possible that an entire shortish article could be written out of facts that are fundamental to a field and really only need a section for a "bibilography" rather than a set of references for things like "grass is green". Is the argument then that we already have all, or nearly all, the articles like that?

In short, I haven't made up my mind on this yet, but I really want to stress that is vitally important to consider factors relating to the benign ignorance of many editors, old and new, and to consider that the success of this project is due, at a fundamental level, to the very low bar to lending a hand. Every raising of that bar should be done with caution aforethought. And not, in the tone of some comments on this talk page, in the mindset of knowing better already because we benefitted from that same low bar to entry. Splash - tk 23:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That integral most definitely does need a source. Wikipedia 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 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. ( 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is being used for mischief. I know without a doubt that it is being used for self-aggrandizement, which is just the flip side of the same impulse, and in the last example is itself harmful to a living person. If we want to apply this policy gradually, we could quite sensibly apply it to bios first.

That said, I am heartily sick of seeing AFD votes, "Keep. All this needs is a reliable source, which I am sure must exist." The person with the best clue where to find a source -- if one actually exists -- is usually long gone.

Whatever we do in this regard should generate a warning when creating new articles. "Articles with no sources may be deleted. Articles with unsourced defamatory content may be deleted without warning." Robert A.West (Talk) 15:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are "heartily sick" of bad AFD arguments, then read 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 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)
 * Comment Robert, I know exactly where you're coming from. Right now, we have a bio article written by the subject.  We deleted it due to COI and now she has reposted it through a friend.  In the article it asserts, by name, that a person sexually assaulted her.  Further, she mentions other names of prominent elected officials.  See the debate Articles for deletion/Barbara Biggs.  I ask myself, if we allow people to pop up and write this kind of stuff confirmed only by their own statements in an interview, what kind of litigation future does the wikipedia project face? How about the family of the people she accuses?Alan.ca 08:41, 10 December 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. Mango juice talk 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:
 * Check if the article is 14 days old.
 * Check it hasn't been vandalised.
 * Check it has no sources, nor any that can be reverted to.
 * Delete the article.
 * Watchlist it.
 * Check every edit to it subsequently.
 * Delete if no sources.
 * If sources, undelete history.
 * (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 Talk 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this page should be moved to a Wikipedia space page, where there can be more directed comment from the entire community. The CSD talk page, at any rate, seems to be contemplating the idea of such a proposal, without ddressing an actual proposal. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd think that would be appropriate unless you think more discussion is needed before a formal proposal is launched. How were the other CSD expansion proposals named? Just do similar after updating it for any improvements suggested so far and perhaps incorporating options so that any individual drawbacks don't sink the ship. - Taxman Talk 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For lack of a better idea: 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 Wikipedia, we'll be overrun with poorly referenced articles, which may be hoaxes, and sorting through them would take mind-numbing amounts of time. I also agree with the specifics spelled out in the proposal, and the 14 days grace period. -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 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) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 . --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 does with cleanup and  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. 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 Wikipedia is ever going to become a reliable source itself (it certainly isn't at present!). Nor will there be a creep to speedily delete articles with source with questionable reliability. Where articles have questionable sources, they will be discussed - if they are vindicated, or if better sources are found, the article will stay. It will never be a CSD issue, but one for sensible discussion. If an article is unable to be justified except by sources found to be dubious then it really has no place in Wikipedia, jguk 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No single source is inherently "reliable." We can't expect Wikipedia to surpass any other encyclopedic-style source, which should never be used as a singular source regardless.  There has always been creep with speedies and this would be no different.  More eyes, less deleiton, more fixing - that's the answer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * At present university undergraduates are often warned not to use Wikipedia as it is not reliable (Wikipedia being specifically singled out). There's no reason why we shouldn't aim to make these warnings a thing of the past. Neither is there any reason why Wikipedia shouldn't become the most reliable encyclopedia - we have enough people working on it, and we're not too far behind Encyclopaedia Britannica already. Wikipedia won't get there with one big bang, but positive moves such as this proposal will get us there in the end, jguk 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think this move is "positive," or will bring us any closer. That's the point.  Hell, as an undergraduate history student, I was told to stay away from all encylcopedias - they're not meant for any sort of significant reference.  Just because we hear Wikipedia singled out in the news doesn't mean that it's not across the board in reality for encyclopedias.  The amount of lost content combined with the fact that we simply have no evidence that such a CSD would be handled properly by adminsitrators given the way previious CSDs have been held makes this a huge, huge mistake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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 Wikipedia? A very large proportion of it focuses on the fact/perception that on the whole Wikipedia is not reliable. Add to that Carnildo's point that on the whole existing articles don't get referenced and we have a problem. Having more unreferenced content is not helpful. More referenced content is extraordinarily so. - Taxman Talk 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sourcing will not solve this problem. The perception is only partially due lack of sourcing, but it also has to do with who edits the encyclopedia.  If you think people are lazy about sourcing now, they'll be even lazier to check up on the sourcing.  In addition, WP:CSB has some major areas that haven't been filled in yet.  ColourBurst 15:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia are on the Internet and connected to the World Wide Web. Searching Google is probably how most people come up with their references anyway. We can safely assume readers of Wikipedia can do the same.
 * Misses the point that the article isn't very helpful until it is sourced, and the person that comes along and does the sourcing could easily have created the article with sources in the first place. - Taxman Talk 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Scaring away newbies
Requiring referencing is like holding up a big sign to any and all potential new Wikipedia editors saying "FUCK OFF". Editing an article should be easy, writing your first article should not be difficult. Adding references and learning to reference properly is not easy, and should not be a requirement for contributing to Wikipedia. Especially, as explained above, unsourced articles are still helpful.

Perhaps some people think that deleting one good article for every 100 nonsense ones is okay. I don't. Especially when the person who sees his or her genuine article deleted for trivial reasons decides not to waste his or her time on Wikipedia any longer, and doesn't bother with the next 99 articles he or she may have written. —Pengo talk · contribs 00:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * '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 Talk 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Another fugly message
Now besides having: Appear on every edit screen,
 * Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted.

You will also have:
 * You must include the source of your statements, or your text will be deleted.

Doesn't make Wikipedia very fun.
 * "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." can be replaced with "Encyclopedic content must provide its sources" at a minimal extra character count; providing sources is a strictly stronger requirement than verifiability, so the old requirement can be dropped from the line. --ais523 08:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia 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 talk · contribs 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 Talk 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect from what you have both written that neither of you have actually read unreferenced. It already says "You can help Wikipedia" and it already links to helpful places. Uncle G 11:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

On the quotes given

 * "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

This does not apply to the vast vast majority of unsourced articles. Most articles do have reputable, reliable, third-party sources, they simply don't mention them.


 * "Any edit lacking a source may be removed".

The operative word here is MAY, not MUST.


 * Jimmy Wales has stated about articles on living persons, which are especially in need of accuracy and sourcing, that "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information".

This is only about one topic (living persons), and Jimmy Wales is just trying to cover his arse because he's tired of seeing potential law suits. Moray eels being unreferenced is hardly going to cause a law suit.

—Pengo talk · contribs 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wonderful closing. How about substitute "Jimmy Wales is just trying to cover his arse" with Jimbo is rightfully protecting the Wikimedia foundation (ie the entity that pays for the servers and is responsible for making sure it keeps running) from potential lawsuits. But lawsuits aren't the only issue, information quality is. Whatever we can do to increase information quality accross the board is the most important thing we can do. Also you're misunderstanding WP:V, if the article doesn't list a source, then for all practical purposes it doesn't have one. - Taxman Talk 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia again. I'm sure it's stated somewhere in wikilore that one should not look to delete where one can improve. Instead of tagging articles, why not use the resource to find sources and citations? Because it's quicker not to? Time to quote J. K. Rowling (sort of): sometimes one must choose between what is right, and what it easy. Mallanox 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Reaction from the field
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. -- 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: --Carnildo 05:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Approximately 80% of all Wikipedia articles are unsourced.
 * 2) Articles have only a minor tendancy to become sourced over time.


 * Interesting. I just repeated your experiment (albeit with a smaller sample size -- 30 articles), and found more like 60% as unsourced.  Well within the bounds of experimental error for such a small sample, but perhaps influenced by an increasing tendency for new articles to be well sourced?  Have you considered rerunning with a new sample of articles, rather than examining the same articles again? JulesH 22:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What clauses?
I'm trying to systematically enumerate various proposals for what the criterion should say here. Each one should probably be checked to see what effect it would have, whether it would be useful, whether it would be instruction creep, and which of the opposes/supports in the table above it would invalidate. I invite discussion on each individual criterion and additions. --ais523 13:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The basic ideas

 * Any article without references may be deleted.
 * The basic idea of the criterion. Each clause below limits the ability of this to apply in certain ways.

Restrictions in the current proposal

 * The article must have had a specific tag for 14 days.
 * The article must have been created after this criterion was adopted.

Other proposed restrictions

 * 1. The article must have less than 50 edits.
 * or 1A: The article must only have one or two substantive editors.
 * 2. The article must be newer than two weeks old.
 * 3. The article must not have survived an AfD.
 * 4. The article must have been listed on an AfD-like debate for 14 days.
 * or 4A. Nominations under this proceedure may be replaced by AfD nominations, if an editor has a reason why an unsourced article should be kept.
 * 5. The article must not have interwiki links.
 * 6. The article must be a BLP.
 * 7. The article must be a biography which gives no reason to suppose the subject is dead, such as being alive before 1900. amended 21:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8. Articles which 'don't need sources' in some sense are exempt.
 * 8A In particular, disambiguation pages are not covered.
 * 9. The user who created the article must be warned on their Talk page.
 * 10. The article can't be deleted, only stubbified.
 * 11. An article that could be deleted under the other restrictions must be AfD'd first.
 * 12. An article deleted under this proposal is undeleteable as soon as a source is given.
 * 13. The tag can only be placed/AfD-like debate started if (a) there is doubt about the source, (b) the nominator has made a proper search to find sources, or (c) the article has been unreferenced for 90 days.

Proposed generalizations
*14. The article needs at least 3 sources. This was my (extreme, admittedly) proposal, and I withdraw it. John Broughton |  Talk 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 15. The sources must be 'reliable' in some sense.

Clause comments by John Broughton
For the generalizations (14, 15), the first is mine, and in the spirit of starting with the least controversial implementation of this proposal, I think it should be dropped. For 15, I think that should also be dropped. An editor always has the option of deleting a source that fails WP:RS and then tagging an article as lacking sources.

For the restrictions:
 * 2 - I can't find that in the text above, and in any case I don't think it makes much sense, so I suggest it be dropped.
 * 4 - would it suffice simply to have a page where all tagged pages (by date) are listed? The AfD-like "process" would simply be that any editor can add a source and remove the tag, in that case.  (The devil is always in the details; such an AfD "process" would have minimal overhead and not compromise the proposal, while an "AfD-like process" that involved, say, voting, would radically change the proposal.)
 * 6 and 7 seem essentially the same - clarification?
 * 8 clearly needs a lot more explanation; in general, seems unworkable as is.
 * 10 isn't consistent with this proposal and I suggest it be dropped - it's not a restriction, and it's not clear who would "stubbify" articles.
 * 11 - needs further elaboration (at minimum, an example); seems to unduly complicate this in any case
 * 13 - (a) isn't consistent with the proposal - if there is a source, an article shouldn't get this tag. (see also 15) Suggest dropping.  I do like the combination of (b) and (c) - if the article is less than 90 days, the nominator has to do a proper search or give the article more time to ripen.  (A proper search might find a few sources that indicate that the subject is not notable, leading to a regular AfD, which would still be a useful expenditure of an editor's time).

Thank you for taking the time to compile the list - very helpful, I think. John Broughton |  Talk 14:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks also. I would suggest this overall proposal is fairly radical and consequently many of the suggestions relate to initially restricting how this would function, to gauge community reaction. Addhoc 14:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

ColourBurst 15:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC) The main point addresses this, so I'm striking out my comment. ColourBurst 15:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Clause comments by nae'blis
As much as I dislike this proposal, I'll weigh in on the above proposed restrictions/clauses:
 * 1. The article must have less than 50 edits. - No. Not sure why this is relevant.
 * 2. The article must be newer than two weeks old. - Undecided; "Created after January 1, 2007" seemed a better criterion, but this may actually be overly restrictive if the goal is to deal with the thousands of unsourced articles already in existence. However better to deal with newer articles first and prove it works constructively than open the floodgates immediately.
 * 3. The article must not have survived an AfD. - No, due to the "Keep but source" outcome people above have objected to. Unless we change the culture of AFD to neutralize that possible outcome, this may backfire. On the other hand, a "clear keep" might be a good escape clause.
 * 4. The article must have been listed on an AfD-like debate for 14 days. - Neutral.
 * 5. The article must not have interwiki links. - Irrelevant.
 * 6. The article must be a BLP. - Maybe. (see above regarding trial runs)
 * 7. The article must be a biography. - See #6.
 * 8. Articles which 'don't need sources' in some sense are exempt. - No, so long as we're counting "Further reading" and "References" as sources, not just explicit footnotes. All articles can and should have some sort of basis outside of the encyclopedia. Edit: Per conversation below, a common-sense exception for disambiguation pages wouldn't hurt, but seems superfluous, as they're not really articles in the same sense that redirects aren't articles.
 * 9. The user who created the article must be warned on their Talk page. - Somewhat against this; better phrasing might be "major contributors" but Watchlists/sufficient lead time for people to notice the CSD tag should make this moot. On the other hand, we are supposed to warn image uploaders, but those are much more difficult to "edit" collaboratively.
 * 10. The article can't be deleted, only stubbified. - No. If you can save something for a stub, it should be sourceable too, which throws the article/stub beyond the scope of this CSD, technically.
 * 11. An article that could be deleted under the other restrictions must be AfD'd first. - Huh?
 * 12. An article deleted under this proposal is undeleteable as soon as a source is given. - Yes.
 * 13. The tag can only be placed/AfD-like debate started if (a) there is doubt about the source, (b) the nominator has made a proper search to find sources, or (c) the article has been unreferenced for 90 days. - No. For it to be a CSD there should be relatively little wiggle room. "Doubt about the source" is the exact sort of scope creep some opposers have referred to. Even A7 doesn't rely a sourced claim of notability, just a claim.
 * 14 and #15 have has already been withdrawn so no comment there. -- nae'blis 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 15. The sources must be 'reliable' in some sense. - No (since it was re-added). We don't speedy hoaxes unless they are so badly written to rise to the level of pure vandalism. We don't speedy A7-candidates if we don't judge the claim to be "notable enough"; this is too much discretion that can and will be misused, I believe. Look at how T1 and G11 are used, and they're supposed to be pretty clearcut! -- nae'blis 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're never going to be able to deal with No. 2 unless you remove the restriction that articles created before the policy are exempt, and that's never going to happen (because that's going to remove quite a bit of content). I do think that newbies are going to complain when you remove their article without a source, and they're inevitably going to point to an article that's already existing and say "look, there's an article without a source and it's not been deleted!"  ColourBurst 16:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, hence my comments above that this would be better as a non-deletion process. -- nae'blis 16:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * #8: "Articles which 'don't need sources' in some sense are exempt." I thought this was about e.g. disambiguation pages. Are you really saying these need sources too? Eugène van der Pijll 16:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I was thinking of the simply connected space example from above. I don't consider disambiguation pages to be "articles" at all, really, but you're right that something like A3's exception wouldn't hurt. -- nae'blis 16:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but A3's exception is not quite enough. Mentioned above are e.g. timelines, and I can add lists to that. Some lists definately need sources (often lists of (living) people), others are merely navigational. For example: none of the LoPbN lists hav sources, and they don't need it either. Eugène van der Pijll 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Other comments by User:Pmanderson

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

I have two substitute suggestions, which fulfill some of the purposes of some of the above.


 * 14/15 If withdrawn, they should be struck. I am opposed to both: Some articles are completely sourced from two references; whether such articles should be merged or deleted is a judgment call, and should be done by discussion. Whether sources are reliable is also a matter of judgment, and should also be done by discussion. Septentrionalis 20:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Colourburst
(only 2 I can think of, most people have gotten the rest) That's it, pretty much. ColourBurst 05:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5: interwiki links can be a good place for sources, but they can't be the sole support for an article. I don't think we have enough cross-wiki communication at the moment, though, it might be a good point.  ColourBurst 05:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 15: "reliable" has no place in an undebatable deletion process. If it were to be debated in the 14-day process instead, it would be just another AfD.

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

Compromise wording
One of the strongest concerns expressed so far seems to be that articles that validly exist without sources are still in danger according to the current wording. My response has been that such articles aren't really in danger because administrators may delete articles that qualify for CSD, but are not required to. We would expect anadministrator to recognize such articles and remove the tag without deleting. There's no reason not to make this explicit, however, and I hope my last edit goes some ways towards allaying such fears:. Dmcdevit·t 06:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With about 500 admins on Wikipedia, chances are that someone will interpret this more liberally than ever intended and go ahead and delete things where the proper remedy was to look for a source. Some weeks back we had one admin who interpreted the "spam" criterion G11 as a license to delete all sorts of cookie products without any discussion, even if the article was worded neutrally. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If 90 percent of the articles that get the tag actually deserve the tag, and for the 10% that don't, 90% of the time an editor recognizes that and removes the tag, then 99% of the time, an article that should be deleted for lack of sources WILL be deleted, with a 1% error rate. (You can play with the %s, of course - 95% correct tag and 80% correct removal, for example, is also 99% overall correct rate.)


 * And that if that 1% error rate involves articles that (a) are retrievable by some process and (b) were short, so not a lot of content was lost in any case, then I think there is a strong case that the benefits of this policy (freeing up editors from involvement in AfDs, so that they can spend their time more productively elsewhere) is much greater than the negatives here.  John Broughton  |  Talk 16:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please slow down and rethink your statistics; you've confused 90% of the articles that get tagged should be deleted with 90% of the articles that should be deleted do get tagged, a very different claim. In addition, this may not actually do much to reduce cruft: John Powers (poet) was effectively tagged source or die and is now cruft with a source, immune to this CSD. Septentrionalis 16:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Trial run
Much of the concerns, and support, are necessarily speculative. I want to propose that we begin a month-long test run sometime in the future, to observe whether the problems we fear and the benefits we look forward to occur. We are arguing whether or not things will happen certain ways right now, when we could simply find out. At the end of the trial period, the application of the CSD should stop, without exception, to allow assessment of the criterion to resume.

Problems we might look for that only a trial period is likely to reveal:
 * How easy is undeletion for recreated articles?
 * Will it be used more aggressively than intended?
 * How often will mistakes (articles for which sources are not necessary) be made?
 * Does biting appear to be at an unacceptable level?

Thoughts? Dmcdevit·t 06:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, the only path to finding and fixing the problems. -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 06:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll get a template etc going. Can't get it to work, but support none-the-less. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support trial run. --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 08:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Will do too much damage to the encyclopedia's integrity, even if it's just a trial run. I've just recently come across this discussion, and I agree with the people opposing this. People will be laughing at us if we start deleting new articles on real towns and cities just because there happens to be no source or external link provided when a quick Google check will verify at least the existence for you. WP:V is the core policy, this enforcement is an overkill. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't jst aim for articles on things that exist, but accurate and neutral articls on them. Also, proof that they exist is nice. If a simple Google check will verify it, then 14 days is plenty for the source on Google to be added. What's the problem? Dmcdevit·t 11:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If a simple google search will provide a source, it's not exactly a burden for the creator of the article to find one. And as soon as a trial run starts, this is exactly what will happen. jguk 11:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think this proposal is not in accordance with some of the most basic fundaments of Wikipedia. Although citing sources is undesirable, it has not been proved that uncited articles (other than those that can be deleted using current CSD rules) are likely to be incorrect. Just marking them unreferenced is of more service to our readers. Eugène van der Pijll 10:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. A trial run, which is all this is a request for, is likely to prove that the concerns raised are unfounded. As we can undelete things easily if necessary, there really is little downside risk in it. jguk 10:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose even the trial run. We already know from our parallel experience with other deletion criteria that some of the concerns stated above are serious and real.  The case has not yet been made that this problem requires such draconian measures.  Rossami (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you think will happen if we tag and then, if necessary, delete articles that don't provide a reference? Creators will soon get into the habit of always providing a reference, won't they? Within 4 weeks, very, very few articles will ever be deleted under this rule. jguk 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that you will rapidly select for those editors who enjoy writing academic articles and providing painstaking detail. Many other good contributors will be put off by this overly-harsh response to their good-faith contributions and will not return to the project.  While we need detail-oriented editors, the project is better off when we can take full advantage of the diversity of our good contributors.  Rossami (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but there is no way to know that without a test run. Considering that the lag is 14 days, a sort trial can hardly do much damage under the worst of circumstances. If it turns out badly, the trial will show that and it will be scrapped easily. We might argue what could happen endlessly. Dmcdevit·t 22:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the trial will be able to prove or disprove the points in question. How do you propose to measure the impact on culture?  I and others have raised the concern that it could be severe.  Supporters think it will be negligible.  Regardless of who's right, any impact will be delayed.  How do you propose to measure it?  How will we know how many good editors were run off during the pilot?  Rossami (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely Support the trial run. The proposal seems quite flawless in theory and having a practical trial will iron out any minor unforseen glitches that come up. --Srikeit 19:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. From reading the discussion I feel that a lot of the concern is unfounded and will prove as such in a trial run. An article without any sources is qualitatively different from an article which has 1 sourced statement and many unsourced ones. For a town, a link to Google maps showing its existence would probably count as a reference (though it gives 0 information beyond location).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support with qualifications: Let's make this as narrow as possible: BLP articles only, and lack of any wikilink or external link whatsoever, in whatever form. But in general, we can debate until the sun burns out on what a proposal will do, but if it looks like the benefits are likely to significantly outweigh the costs (as I believe is the case here), it's reasonable to actually go and test it and found out whose hopes and fears and concerns and expectations are right and whose are wrong, and maybe even things that hadn't been anticipated.  And we can learn from that, and continue to improve, and if this doesn't work, then we can look for other ways to get to a higher quality encyclopedia.  John Broughton  |  Talk 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I did above. Way too many questions at this point to even think about a trial run. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for biographies, the required level of referencing for articles about cases, books, and bands is iffy, so I think we'd be best off starting with articles that definitely need sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. This is bureaucracy at its very worst, and hasn't come anywhere near consensus.   Un  focused  16:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support would prefer a limited trial run for biographies to gauge the wider community reaction, but would still support a full trial on the understanding if there were serious concerns we could pull the plug. Addhoc 16:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Far too much deletion going on already, without encouraging it. Create, don't destroy. We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not to provide as many reasons as possible why people's hard work should be deleted. -- Necrothesp 17:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The point isn't to actually get rid of anything, if possible, it's to remind creators to include sources, which leads to building a better encyclopedia, not a worse one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "We're not nominating for deletion in order to get rid of anything". Does this sound like WP:POINT to anybody but me? ;->Septentrionalis 23:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It just encourages the creation of spurious citing, and the deletion of articles that while important, no one is watching. Tito xd (?!?) 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Francis Schonken 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for any articles other than BLPs. There's too much potential for damaging the quality of the project if we get this wrong. JulesH 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose except on conditions The fundamental assumption here is that article creators will learn to provide sources if we are draconian enough. A factoid has been going through WP that most of our content, especially new articles, is provided by newbies and anons. They aren't in a position to learn anything; they'll just wonder why their article disappeared. If this is done at all, it must be for BLPs and it must apply to articles less than 14 days old, so we have some hope of catching the newbie before he gets bored with WP.  Septentrionalis 23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Blank Verse 12:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - trial run of which version?? Too many questions still to even try this out, and I have concerns about what methodology would be used. -- nae'blis 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose any run, trial or otherwise. I believe this proposal is contrary to the purpose of the principles of verifiability and no original research. These principles are intended to prevent the inclusion of crackpot science, original historical analysis and other such junk, not to promote the deletion of material that is accurate and uncontroversial.dryguy 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support CSD for BLP only. There it is an urgent and strong matter.  On consideration, I think an alternative XfD process is better for general verifiability/OR problems. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support We are being overwhelmed by unsourced articles, and the threat of deletion is probably the only thing that will cause most editors to bother adding a source. -- Donald Albury</b> 21:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then threaten; see the proposal at MediaWiki_talk:Copyrightwarning. Most of the people writing unsourced articles won't know about this. Septentrionalis 18:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * unsourced and cn tags in articles now are more likely to be ignored, removed and/or provoke complaints from editors about why am I cluttering up the page than to actually result in sources being added. I do remove material that has been tagged, after waiting for a month or more, but what do I do about an article that has NO sources, even after the unsourced tag has been sitting at the top of the page for months. I have found sources for a few articles like that, but I have trouble finding time to work on the articles I want to do, and keep up with my watch list. Just what threat can I use to get editors to do something about missing sources? Maybe I'll just start cutting such articles back to stibs until sources are produced. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Semi-related external links, that will be added as "references" only to prevent deletion of articles, are not the answer to the high number of unsourced articles. Trial run is not necessary. Prolog 12:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose I support the CSD, but I won't support a trial run without wider acceptance in the community. --ais523 13:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support trial run provided that only articles created after the run begins may be tagged. Seraphimblade 13:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Rebecca 04:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons explained here. John254 06:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as long as the notion of "reputable, reliable, third-party sources" is not spelled out in a clear,consistent and uncontroversial way, which btw I regard as impossible. Stammer 09:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This problem is answered in the proposal; any source is enough to prevent the CSD from working (AfD or prod has to be used if the sources are deemed unreliable). --ais523 10:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that does not address the underlying issue. Let me give you a concrete example. If you start checking links related to, say, Somalia and its civil war, you'll find that many of them are poorly sourced or not sourced at all. Still, they may provide valuable information on what's the situation on the field. Even an unsourced, rabidly WP:POV article about some Somali clan may still contain useful information that can be filtered by a trained eye. I hate the idea that such information may be be just thrown out of the window, without discussion. I have repeatedly seen appropriate sources being added within the AfD process and ugly ducks become swans (well, almost ...) . IMO Wikipedia is a collective endeavour, where every participant is invited to contribute. Raising barriers to entry may just destroy value. Stammer 11:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Sjakkalle
As per my two comments above, I feel that the proposal is too far reaching, and too draconian. Several concerns have been attempted addressed in a "may delete" clause, but that is wide open too interpretation. If 563 admins look at the page and decide that they will not delete even if its unsourced, and one admin thinks it should be deleted, the article will wind up deleted. After all, I frequently see articles tagged for deletion as A7 even when there is some assertion of notability (some people think running as a major party candidate for congress in the US is not even an assertion), I have no confidence that we won't have admins deleting everything unsourced (even if it's easily sourced) if we implement a criterion like this.

Then there are some cases where adding sources just looks silly. THe example which comes to mind are disambiguation and other navigational pages. I strongly doubt that JFK (disambiguation) would be a much better page if each entry there were sourced (if you want a source, click each entry and you will find the sources). So someone has suggested a clause to prevent such pages being targetted, called a clearly unneeded clause. But what ishttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion_criterion_for_unsourced_articles&action=edit&section=74 clearly supposed to mean? What if we have an admin who thinks JFK (disambiguation) clearly needs sources? Is it that obvious that people refer to John F. Kennedy as "JFK"? Maybe someone has just made up all these abbreviations! After all, there was an admin who interpreted the spam criterion G11 to mean that all the neutrally worded articles on cookie brands could be deleted.

Now, I wonder why we cannot simply use the existing processes WP:PROD and WP:AFD. One advantage (well, sometimes it's a disadvantage) of WP:PROD is that once something is deleted, it can be immediately undeleted without discussion. So if something is deleted by WP:PROD as "possibly unverifiable, no sources provided", it is not too late to restore the article with sources. Alright, let's say WP:PROD is not possible, perhaps a bad faith vandal removed the extremely well reasoned prod-tag. Still, we have no problems getting the article deleted if it's truly unverifiable. A concern that the article is unverifiable carries a huge weight on AFD discussions.

My basic question is this. What is this criterion supposed to achieve that the current WP:PROD and WP:AFD cannot do already? (AFD with a 5 or 6 day time scale is after all faster than this two-week "speedy" criterion.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Then there are some cases where adding sources just looks silly." Can you give a more reasonable example? No one at all considers that this criterion would be useful for disambiguation pages, and if you think an admin would delete a disambiguation page based on this, they don't deserve to be an administrator. Furthermore, disambiguation pages are explicitly mentioned in the wording. The argument sounds like grasping at straws.
 * This criterion is supposed to achieve precisely what AFD and PROD don't. That would be sourcing articles. Do you honestly think that either of those deletion processes causes articles to be sourced as a result, and that they don't just keep any unsourced articles indefinitely, with no way to cause sourcing? They have no mechanism for requiring them, since they don't delete for lack of sources, and there's no oversight after a "keep and cleanup" or de-prodding. In fact, not too long ago, I prodded dozens of band articles that had no sources other than official websites/MySpace/YouTube links. The results: "will dig up some more sources shortly" on Oct 20, none ever came, "will hunt down sources shortly." none ever came, no comment, no comment, no sources provided, no sources provided, no sources provided, no sources provided, no sources provided, no sources provided, no sources provided, no comment, no sources provided, no sources provided, no source provided, I could go on. Most of these are still bad sourceless articles: our current mechanisms are insufficient for requiring sourcing. Dmcdevit·t 10:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, does Brothers Majere need a source? Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should be easy to list out which pages do not need references. Unless I'm missing something, it is disambiguation pages and redirects. I've amended the text accordingly. Do check to see if I've missed anything though, jguk 11:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The example with Brothers Majere is a book. Is the book itself a reference for its own existence? (Primary source, but there is no trouble verifying the book's existence online if you want to). Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Some reviews and commentary about the work would be nice (there should be some).  WP:FICT says that just a plot summary is highly discouraged.  (I mean, what's to stop somebody from claiming that their self-published work "doesn't require a source" either because this book doesn't have it?)  ColourBurst 15:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If the article only covers things in the book, the book is a reference. In this case we have the author, date of publication, ISBN and publisher, so it's easy to find the book if you want to check the details in the article. So yes, I would say that that article is properly referenced. To give another example, I have recently removed a request for sources from North Carolina v. Mann, on the grounds that as the article gives a full case reference, the case itself is a source for the content of the article, jguk 15:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When it comes to those un-prodded music articles, then they would not be covered by the proposed speedy criterion here becuase they have a link, albeit only to their own site. Still a sort of reference though whowing that it was not made up for Wikipedia without anything. (Incidentally, I am an utter idiot when it comes to music, and am not entirely sure how to determine if WP:MUSIC's inclusion criterion 4 is satisfied, but it seems to me that Bigwig (band) has released some CDs on record labels which are widely available.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, a few of them wouldn't be covered because this criterion is constructed too conservatively to cover them. How is this an argument that the criterion is too "far-reaching" and "draconian"? Things like "it seems to me that Bigwig (band) has released some CDs on record labels which are widely available" are precisely the problem. It doesn't matter what it seems to you, whet we need is an independent, reliable source saying that. The unsuccessful prods show that our current mechanisms can't produce that. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You need an independent source to tell you that something is for sale? I don't understand, isn't a listing on Amazon, for example, proof enough that something is widely available, given that Amazon ships to almost anywhere?  In this specific case, just take a look for yourself if something's there, and if not, AfD it.  How we record your verification is a different question for a different discussion, since things can go out of print and unavailable without much warning.  Un  focused  18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way Dmc, I fully agree with you that anyone who wanted to delete JFK (disambiguation) because it is unsourced should not be an admin, and the example was extreme and therefore perhaps not the best one. However there are a number of list articles which are also unsourced because they are primarily intended to be navigational aids. Yet there are people who might condemn them as "listcruft", but they cannot go ahead and delete them because they are not speedy deletion candidates. Is it possible that someone would use this speedy criterion to delete a list with the official reason "unsourced" while the real reason is "listcruft"? Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even a relatively short list can contain far more information than a short article. It's not unreasonable to require it to be sourced, jguk 11:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An example of an unsourced list is List of religions. If someone wants to make this a category instead, then fine. However, I don't think speedy delete is appropriate. That said, admins are, of course, required to use their common sense. Possibly we could rephrase and say "navigational pages" instead of "disambiguation and redirects". Addhoc 12:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit, this process won't nab those articles, because they would have at least a myspace/youtube/official site external link. Unless you specifically exclude those from being "reliable sources" most of those are going to stay still.  ColourBurst 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not just use AfD and PROD? Well, AfDs are overkill - way too much time by editors - for cruft, and besides, the point of the tag is to try to get someone to improve the article as much as it is to delete it, while an AfD often devolves into arguments.  As for PRODs, if there was an automated system that automatically stuck a PROD on every unsourced article, would you support that?  And, of course, anyone can remove a PROD without actually improving an article.  I see this policy as filling the gap between speedy delete and PROD/AfD, removing minor articles that no one cares enough about (within 14 days) to actually add a source.   John Broughton  |  Talk 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of those examples I gave would not be covered with this criterion, becuae it is written more conservatively. My point with those examples is to demonstrate that our current processes have no mechanism for requiring sourcing. Saying AfD and PROD are sufficient misses the point. Dmcdevit·t 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem: you say they are "all unsourced". A newbie that knows nothing about policy will say that all but 5 are sourced (they're all primary sources, or youtube, or myspace).  This process will only delete those 5 but not the rest (remember we're not judging the quality of the sources there, but if they exist).  So that's around a 25% hit rate, pretty abysmal.  You'll still need to prod/AfD the rest unless you place a "reliable sources" clause in there, but that's dangerous.  ColourBurst 21:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since when was 25% worse than 0%, the alternative you suggest? "You'll still need to prod/AfD"&mdash;no, this is the problem. Those were PRODs, and they survived, and were never sourced anyway. AfD and PROD can't fix them. Dmcdevit·t 21:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Requiring references really shouldn't be a big deal
I really see only improvements arising from what really is a modest proposal.

It's a quite reasonable request to ask the author of an article - how do you know that? can you give me a reference? And it's not a particular onerous question to answer provided you really are writing about something you know about. After all, if you can't tell me why you believe it to be true, why should you present it to me as true.

Very quickly after implementation, those creators of articles who are not yet providing references will get into the habit of adding them, which will improve the reliability of Wikipedia. When occasionally they make a mistake, the article will be tagged, and they can go back and add the references. And as long as they are informed of the situation, that will happen. jguk 11:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Requiring references is completely uncontroverial. It's when the extreme position of speedy deletion (or delayed speedy deletion) is brought into the fold that it becomes a very, very big deal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's a requirement without enforcement? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Badlydrawnjeff, WP:V already allows the removal of content where a reference has been requested but not provided. Current policy therefore already permits page blanking in this situation. A blank page would then be a candidate for speedy deletion under other rules. jguk 17:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Challenged
Granding that truth is not a defense against nonverification, I do note that WP:V say "Any article that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source". The great majority of statements are not likely to be challenged by any reasonable person. For instance, take the statement "A. C. Smith was commander of XV Corps of the British Army of the Rhine from 1957 to 1959." Who would challenge that? To challenge it, you would have to have some reasonable cause to suspect that it isn't true. But who would make something like that up? And the great majority of unverified statements are of this type.

Of course, it's possible that the statement was made up by a sneaky vandal. But very, very few such statements would be so - vandals don't work like that. (For that matter that vandal could just a source that doesn't support the statement and, provided it isn't online, no one would be likely ever be the wiser.)

It's also possible that the person made a mistake - it's a different A. C. Smith, maybe, that commanded XV corps. Or that his source (whatever it was) is itself in error. In this case, referencing isn't going to help much... the reference would point to a valid source that stated that one A. C. Smith was indeed commander of XV Corps, and absent further digging the reader has no way to find out that it's a different Smith or that the source is wrong.

I do enforce very strict verification standards on the articles I mainly work on, because they are contentious and open to POV and OR statements, but for stuff like the example here, which is most of our stuff - I don't see why the spirit of "...that is challenged or likely to be challenged..." shouldn't be the standard for demanding verification. Herostratus 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This proposal is not really about that. It only asks for one reference for each new article. Though a reference for your claim really would be beneficial. Maybe it was CA Smith, or the XIV Corps or from 1947 to 1949. I'd therefore recommend giving a source for everything so anyone so minded can check it. But as noted before, this proposal does not go anywhere near as far as that - just asking for one reference for each article (which will at least provide evidence that the subject matter exists), jguk 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, some vandals do operate that way.  This is all the more likely when POV-pushing is possible.  Of course, this proposal does not directly address that problem, and indirectly only to the extent that it may encourage more fact checking.  Robert A.West (Talk) 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fish where the fish are
This strikes me as an ill-conceived proposal. Plenty of basically decent articles, especially short articles, appear in Wikipedia without any reference apparatus. And plenty of articles that provide quite a few references nonetheless include masses of crap. The issue ought to be to identify statements that need to be removed because they are unreferenced and someone actually has doubts about them, not to remove articles that lack proper references but appear to be correct. - Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V already allows for the challenging and removal of dubious, uncited statements by any editor at any time. This is intending to encourage editors who create new articles to remember to include references. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To my mind "add a source or it gets deleted" isn't encouragement, it's wikipolicing. That's like saying "we encourage you to pay taxes"! It's another rule in an already very litigious environment. Any half-clever vandal will provide a source that means his load of rubbish stays while a well-meaning novice creates a valid article and it gets deleted. Why do so many wikipedians concentrate on deletion rather than improvement? Mallanox 16:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. There seem to be far too many people coming to Wikipedia now who never write anything of their own, but only go round looking for other people's work to delete, usually sneering at it in the process (just look at the attitude taken on many AfDs and PROD notices if you don't believe me). This is a tendency that needs to be nipped in the bud now before these people damage the project irrevocably. Despite their arrogant claims that only they are the true guardians of Wikipedia and their sneering at we lowly beings who actually try to create articles, they are in fact the true enemies of this encyclopaedia - far more dangerous than any vandal and certainly much more dangerous than the unfortunate editor (sorry, heretic) who doesn't reference every single piece of information in his article. -- Necrothesp 23:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I support this proposal and since posting on this page I've started two articles for the WP:MISSING project. Could I enquire how many articles have you have started recently? Addhoc 00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if you look on my userpage you'll find the answer to how many articles I've started! -- Necrothesp 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Night Gyr makes a good point here. Current policy would allow users to go to every unreferenced article and quite reasonably challenge all of its content on the grounds that as there are no references, they can't be sure that the subject matter exists. If the creator then did not supply a reference within a reasonable time, the content would be removed, at which point the article would be deleted as it contained no content. All this proposal is doing is regularising this. jguk 16:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Instead of tagging the article, why does the challenger not look for sources and AfD if none can be found? Mallanox 17:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How long does it take to find a source that backs up the text, and then assess the source to see whether it is reliable (which can be difficult even if you are familiar with the subject in hand)? Then, possibly, add the time it takes to do an AfD, which is likely to fail as soon as the creator gives one reference. Then multiply that by however many new articles are created that currently do not have references. Compare that with the time it would take each article creator just to make a note of why he believes what he has written is true when he is creating the article. jguk 17:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree that looking for references should be the first stage. The second stage is to give everyone else the opportunity to find references. If after a reasonable period, none can be found, the article should be speedily deleted. This seems common sense to me. Addhoc 17:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * New users aren't going to know to do this. It may be common sense to you (common sense is not always objective, and invoking its name doesn't guarantee instantly everyone will agree) but it's not going to be comon sense to a new user. Do we want to make it too much of a chore for new people to be able to contribute in a constructive way? That's the way things are heading. We need to look at simplifying existing rules before we start adding more, convoluted, ones. Mallanox 21:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So autoload new article pages with a ==References== header (and probably a uncategorized tag, but that's another argument). make it easier for people to add sources, rather than just making it easier to delete overlooked articles. We already have all the policies and procedures in place to deal with truly bad actors. -- nae'blis 19:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel has it exactly right. I previously estimated the percentage of unsourced statements and the percentage of correct statements on Wikipedia. By coincidence, I got 99.6% for each (not the same 99.6%, of course). I would guess that a large percent of material that would be deleted under this proposed policy would be factually accurate, uncontroversial material. The real cancer is the inaccurate material, especially illegitimately-sourced inaccurate material, which this proposal doesn't address. dryguy 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You really believe that 99.6% of all statements on Wikipedia are inaccurate? If not, what did you mean to say?


 * In any event, the discussion cited is not really relevant. Here, we are not discussing fact tags, but completely unreferenced articles, most of which are not tagged in any way.  (I also dispute the methodology used to come up the the figure, but that is a different matter.)  The complaint that a change to deal with problem X does not also solve problem Y is a form of false dilemma.  All variants of this proposal (and DfV or UfD is actually less severe than current policy as written) are designed to deal with a problem that is relatively easy to identify and solve.  If, as you suspect, most unsourced articles are sourcable, the result will just be to put urgency on sourcing them, which will improve Wikipedia.


 * Finding inaccuracies and then getting the corrections sourced is a much harder and slower process, and requires knowledgable editors. Policy pretty much can't do anything about it, unless we start taking people to Arbcom for putting in fake sources and grossly misusing sources. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops. 99.6% accurate. I don't claim that this proposal fails to address a problem that it isn't intended to address. It is meant to improve sourcing of articles, yes? I just don't see the benefit of achieving that by tossing a large percentage of otherwise good material. It would do more harm than good. And you can quibble with my estimation, but whether it is 99.6%, 90% or even 80%, you are talking about a proposal that would throw the power to delete a large percentage of Wikipedia into the hands of anyone who has an axe to grind about nearly any article. dryguy 13:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Effectiveness
While I appreciate the motivation for this proposal, the more I think about it, I'm most concerned about its effectiveness. If any external reference will suffice to thwart off this CSD, then what is it really buying? People will just start adding their own personal home pages or the first entry in the results of a Google search. How is that helping? If this proposal were to require secondary sources to establish some base notability, that would have some teeth behind it. I'd be all for it. The way it's proposed now, I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in neither the deletion of any article nor the overall improvement of Wikipedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't create articles anonymously. An editor creating lots of articles with clearly inappropriate references will soon be sussed out, and appropriate measures taken, jguk 21:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate how? What is this going to catch that other CSD won't?  Frankly, if an article looks like borderline notability and is unreferenced, I'll just bring it to AFD - it's faster. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And how will he be sussed out? Quite possibly only the nominators and the deleting admins will have seen the nominations. On AfD there's more eyes to notice that User:wasteoftime keeps showing up to defend cruft. Septentrionalis 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's be direct
Instead of this, why don't we add Do show where you got your facts or even Articles without sources may be deleted to the edit screen. (As NightGyr keeps pointing out, the second is possible under present policy.) If we're trying to scare people straight, let's make sure that it's a message new editors will actually see.

I don't say anything for either wording above, except that it's short. Septentrionalis 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest taking this to MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning, where this change will have to be discussed anyway before being implemented. (I suggested something similar on WT:CSD.) --ais523 11:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Either this has just been done, or it has been there all along. "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources will be deleted."  .  Robert A.West (Talk) 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A horrible example
As an example of why this proposal should not be tightened to require any more than the existence of a source, I present Articles for deletion/Abba Samuel of Dabra Wagag, where an a editor nominated an article on the grounds ''This is almost utter nonsense. Also, the only source is in Latin, so no one can really verify it. Finally, this could be a possible violation of WP:HOAX.''

The article is about an Ethiopian saint, and summarizes his Life. (The "nonsense" is mostly bad English by the author of the article; also a couple miracles.) It is sourced from the translation of that hagiography (into French, not Latin). It was contributed by a very new contributor, who hasn't been back in three weeks. (It also needs a lot of work.)

Now suppose that the nom had used this proposal, extended to judge sources. It is clear that he considers the source unreliable; so he would tag it. I doubt anyone (except perhaps the creator) was watching the article, so the tag would probably stick, and we would lose this article, which might not be replaced for years. (Who knows Ge'ez saints?) Fortunately, he brought it to AfD instead. Septentrionalis 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What does that "example" have to do with the current proposal. The article had a source; there is already no substantial support for including articles with dubious sources in this proposal. Dmcdevit·t 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I still see substantial support for this among the support !votes; but if the horse is dead, so much the better. Septentrionalis 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the support for evaluating sources comes almost entirely from the discussion about an XfD process, where there are more eyes and a chance to gain consensus on the validity of a source. Of course, one could remove fake, irrelevant and unreliable sources and then nominate under CSD, but unless the case for removal was clear and strong, the admin should revert to the "sourced" version. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by JulesH
I strongly oppose this proposal in its current form. My reasons are:


 * A very large majority of articles are unsourced, and generally remain unsourced for long periods of time.
 * An unsourced article is useful -- it is a basis off which an editor can work to produce a usefully sourced one.
 * An article deleted is nearly useless -- it will only ever be useful if the editor who eventually fixes the issues with it actually knows about it, and can persuade an admin to undelete it. This won't happen very often, largely because it's highly unlikely that the user who would fix the problem would know about the existence of the deleted article.
 * Most completely unsourced articles are written by newbies. This makes the entire proposal sound somewhat like WP:BITE to me.  Certainly, I think a requirement to provide sources with all new content would deter new editors.
 * Finding suitable sources for an article can sometimes be a long process that requires the interaction of multiple editors over a long period of time. See, for instance, the edit history of Disemvoweling, an article that took three editors working together for several weeks to find a source that overcame the objections of one of the other editors.

But:


 * Unsourced information is a big problem. It decreases public opinion of the project, which is an important issue.
 * Unsourced information on BLPs is a serious problem; it opens up the foundation to potential legal issues.

Therefore, I think something should be done. My suggestion:


 * Apply something like this proposal to BLPs. I think, in this case, waiting 14 days even is not appropriate; the material should be removed as soon as possible.  Perhaps the 5 days currently allowed for prod would be appropriate.
 * For other articles, there should be a large, friendly banner, that explains clearly that the article has no sources and could therefore be incorrect, and advises readers that they shouldn't trust its content, and
 * There should also be another banner which states that information has been removed from the article because it lacks sources. Then, WP:V (or WP:ATT) could be rephrased to suggest to readers encountering information that has remained unsourced for a long period of time that it should be removed, and such a banner placed on the article's talk page. It doesn't even matter if the article ends up empty (although in that case the banner should probably be on the article page, not the talk page, so that readers don't get totally confused...)
 * I also like the proposal above for a dated "unsourced article" system similar to the current cleanup system. JulesH 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And a modified edit screen. See above. Septentrionalis 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)