Wikipedia talk:Long-term Unsourced Articles

Please, if you do not think this proposal is a good idea, please explian what problems it has and how you think it could be improved instead of shooting it down without explaining why. Paul Cyr 21:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong message?

I like the idea, but I think this may be giving people the wrong idea. Why not spend the time you would be trying to delete an article by sourcing it? If an article is notable, but not sourced, we shouldn't get rid of the content that may be good for future source-finders. I just think that this is too "deletionist" of a policy suggestion. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll clarify by saying that if an article is borderline notable, and it is lacking sources, this may be a good way to expedite the deletion. I just think that it should be ensured that notable articles don't get included in this too, even if they are unsourced. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  02:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be going against the idea of There's no deadline or The world will not end tomorrow. Just becase it doesn't have sources is not a reason for deleting it, if it cannot have sources then that's a different matter. Witty Lama 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You do realize those are essays created by only a handful of users right? Paul Cyr 07:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't like this

First of all, WP:ATT is no longer policy, WP:V is what we are using now. Second, this will delete more good articles than bad. According to Category tracker, there are 68,954 pages in Category:All articles lacking sources, that's 4% of all the pages on Wikipedia. I also have a problem with "hundreds of articles exist that have not been edited more than a few times or in many months; these articles have fallen through the cracks." This suggests that the proposal is targeting low-visibility pages. We should be targeting the high-visibility pages, that are edited often and still are unsourced, these are the true problems with sourcing on Wikipedia and these might actually get sources as people will see the message. The articles "that have not been edited more than a few times" should be targeted for cleanup, not a mass deletion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Current Solution Does Not Work

The reason why I suggested this is because the current solution in practise, the one that you all seem to suggest, does not work. Nearly 70,000 unsourced articles is not a good thing. This is one of the biggest issues plaguing wikipedia. It's probably the most common complaint I see in the media. Jared suggested spending the time trying to find sources, is this not what people have been doing? Still we have 70,000 unsourced articles. Lama said that just because an article doesn't have sources, it is not a reason for deleting it. There are articles that have been lacking sources for 2 years. Articles needed sources for over 2 years deserve to be put in jeopardy. If no one in 2 years is going to fix them, then maybe editors need to finally be told "look, you've had 2 years, get a source" else the article is deleted. As for Mr.Z-Man, same answer that I gave to Jared. This is not for mass deletion, this is for saying that you've had 2 years to get a source, get one now or be deleting. That is rediculous.

I agree this is a little deltionist and a little massive in scale. But WP cares more about unspecified copyright tags, then it's own reputation as being reliable and accurate.

In short, Jared and Mr.Z-Man have simply suggested the current method. Obviously when 4% of the project does not meet the policies (i.e. WP:V) then action needs to be taken after an extremely long period of time. It's not like articles need sources else be deleted right away, it's saying that after months of waiting for them to get sources, they have one last chance, then are removed. If anyone can suggest how the current solution does work, I'd love to hear it. If we can have articles lacking sources for 2 years without consequence, then WP:V isn't really a policy but more of a guideline isn't it? And that would violated some of the main pillars of wikipedia and continue to plauge it with the unreliability that it receives so much bad press for. Paul Cyr 03:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: BTW, if the time period was something like 5 years before being nominated, would you still oppose it?

Yes. WP:CSB recognises that certain subjects will not attract the level of attention others will, although they may be the equal in notability. This proposal runs counter to that concept.

If the suggested problem is that such a raft of unsourced articles is to the detriment of Wikipedia (which does have some value) then it is not to the same degree as incorrectly sourced (either wrong source or source giving bad information) articles which, by the logic of this proposal, are considered okay to exist until found out. Much more harm is done to WP by linking to a source that is patently wrong than an unsourced site which may be right.

A point I would make is that if an article, notability notwithstanding, has had little interest in sourcing it then it is equally unlikely to be the subject of a search. Of course, if it were then the interested party might then be persuaded to work on it. LessHeard vanU 21:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected

I think this proposal will delete something like 90% of the wiki-database. (folks just haven't gotten round to putting unsourced tags everywhere, there are >1M pages, after all). Marked as rejected for now. It might be interesting to do statistics (maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and only 80% would end up deleted).

Note that unsourced material need only be removed if challenged. There may well be a consensus among experts on a page.

--Kim Bruning 03:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So is Wikipedia accuracy a trust thing now? Paul Cyr 03:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. At any rate, this proposal isn't really a practical way to go about things. (It certainly is possible to raise accuracy though. My own favorite approach is m:eventualism .) --Kim Bruning 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A good proposal, I think.

When I first read over this proposal, I thought it to be a bit extreme. However, I changed my mind once I took into account the deterrence factor that this proposed policy would provide.

It basically "raises the floor" for articles. The aggregate quality of Wikipedia would increase at the expense of poorly-cited articles. I don't see much of a problem with that. .V. _[Talk|Email] 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that quantity has a quality all of its own (especially since I think this policy would reduce the number of wiki-pages by an entire order of magnitude :-P ) --Kim Bruning 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where you're getting your statistics from. You're assuming no one would actually put the effort into adding a reference or two when in article is facing imminent deletion. Paul Cyr 03:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my experience that that is often how things work, yes. --Kim Bruning 13:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The threat of deletion is a kick in the pants for whoever wants to expand the article. If nobody wants to expand the article, then the article is basically worthless, and perhaps will be recreated by someone who can expand upon it. .V. _[Talk|Email] 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. But ~900K kicks in the aft end are more likely to leave someone in hospital :-P --Kim Bruning 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Even 70Kkicks might be a bit much :-P

Possibly, but I think the good outweighs the harm when the numbers are crunched. I, for one, wouldn't like to say "Wikipedia is great. They have 1,500,000+ articles. Too bad 250,000 of them completely suck" but rather "Wikipedia is great. They have 1,250,000 articles, and they're all pretty well sourced." .V. _[Talk|Email] 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty optimistic values there. My numbers lead me to the conclusion that people will say: "Gosh, wikipedia now has only 100 000 articles. Many of them suck, but at least all have sources" --Kim Bruning 15:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So you'd rather have a lot of OR/abandoned (keep in mind, this is for old articles) articles than a few well-sourced, well-maintained articles? .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced does not equal OR. Unverifiable might do. Verifiable unsourced and/or abandoned articles should be regarded as a resource, awaiting an editor to be made into better pieces. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, presented in a pristine and unalterable form, it is a work in progress at the same time.

If articles are unloved as projects then they are very unlikely to be targets for searches, so the amount of potential good articles shouldn't be of concern, and thus reflects the status quo at the time. Also, time is what we do have plenty of... LessHeard vanU 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) I agree, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and it certainly is a work in progress. However, I think this proposed policy would impel people to put a source in an article they create. The problem is, Wikipedia can never be a good encyclopedia if unsourced material is as rampant as it is now. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, true. However Kim Bruning makes an excellent point elsewhere that we could have an encyclopedia containing examples of well sourced rubbish (that is poorly written, illustrated, etc. rather than non-notable). Also, inertia has its own momentum (sic); I doubt prodding these articles will make editors find sources. LessHeard vanU 20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It works on incentive. If people knew they had to have a source or else their article could be deleted, they would find a source. The resulting article would be superior to an article without this system in several ways: (1) The article will have more context because there's a source. (2) The article is less likely to be OR. This proposal sets a floor for articles. Keep in mind that this is only after long-term unsourcedness, so it's basically clearing away the "debris" (i.e. articles which are unlikely to become sourced, most likely because they aren't suitable for wikipedia anyway.) .V. _[Talk|Email] 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See the comments by User:Itub, "Terrible Idea", below. The floor is already set at "Attributable", not "Attributed" which is what this policy proposes.LessHeard vanU 12:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So why not raise the floor? .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointless

This is the same thing as PROD, except that nobody is allowed to dispute it, which is silly. Why do we need a new process to do this? -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Is PROD a valid way to deleted unsourced articles? I wasn't aware. And people can dispute this, they have 3 months (if thats the agreed length) to add a reference. Paul Cyr 05:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Prod can be used for anything. If you prod an article with the reason "t RH j0jGB %Jjjjy '53jy 4", and nobody disputes that reason, it can be deleted. If it's disputed at all, even because "i dunt wanna find sources", you do have to go through AfD, but I don't think the extra time spent there is worth a new process. -Amarkov moo! 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not set in stone

I also want to mention this proposal is not set in stone. I am open to any suggestions on a better way to handle this issue. We just need some way to either get articles referenced or get rid of them. Paul Cyr 05:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that in fact we definitely do not want that. (Or maybe it's just because I happen to have an eventualist point of view, and really am strongly opposed to such extreme immediatism ;-) --Kim Bruning 13:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Statistics to ponder

Anyone considering this proposal should look at User:Carnildo/The 100, in particular, the proportion of articles that are unsourced, and the trends in article sourcing over time. --Carnildo 08:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not good

As Carnildo says, we have too many long-term unsourced articles for this proposal to viably make Wikipedia better. >Radiant< 09:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with opinions above. There are currently too many unsourced articles for automatic deletion to be a reasonable way of proceding. Automatic deletion is not supported by policy, which only requires a source for information that is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Tagging an article {{unsourced}} doesn't constitute a challenge, IMO.

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is probably the best way of dealing with long-term unsourced articles, as it allows a very simple method of contesting the deletion. Contested deletions can be listed on WP:AFD if necessary. We don't need another way of dealing with this when the current tools are adequate to the job. JulesH 10:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles also need to not contain original research. Without citations, it might as well be OR. .V. _[Talk|Email] 15:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Terrible idea

As the proposal itself says, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source". Note that is says "attributable" and not "attributed". This means that it has to be possible to attribute it to a reliable source, not "already attributed". Many, many articles are notable, correct, and attributable in principle, but are not already attributed to any sources. Deleting them is a completely unnecessary destruction of useful information and of the effort of countless contributors. --Itub 15:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reject this...

...as an essential rehash of Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, which was soundly rejected not too long ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to trawl through the above mentioned proposal (it is a very big discussion, Gentle Reader) I would ask you, as you presumably took part there, is there any part of the current proposal that is new or significantly different? LessHeard vanU 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Small details. Nothing significant enough to make this drastically different. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. This proposed policy should be rejected as being already discussed and rejected, per link provided by badlydrawnjeff. LessHeard vanU 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Poor grounds and worse solution

I wrote at the village pump;

This is confusing notability with popularity. Articles do not get to FA because they are more notable than others, but because editors are willing to devote the time and effort. Conversely, an item is not non-notable because a tag hasn't been acted upon within a certain time period. Should a hypothetical article on the 14th Century Economics of Scandanavia be put up for deletion just because we have no editors that can read Mediaeval Swedish (or any that care to read Swedish treatises on 14th Century Economics)?

without knowing that the proposed policy was suggesting speedy deletion of said articles. As I wouldn't support the proposed policy if it suggested articles went to AfD, where there was a chance that the worthiness of the subject would be recognised and the sources found, then I cannot support the policy as written specifically or generally. LessHeard vanU 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A new template

Since it seems that this proposal is not going to succeed, how do you all feel about the following template that is specialized for PROD'ing pages without sources. It's pretty much the same as the normal PROD template, but gives the specific reason and would add it to a category such as Category:Proposed deletion for lacknig sources as of date. This would allow people to manual nominate pages easily, and allow people to watch a category for nominations. This would prevent mass deletions which you all seem to want to avoid since someone would have to manually PROD pages. This template is just an easy way for doing what already can be done, but also gives a category for helping to track pages being PROD'ed for lacking sources. Paul Cyr 22:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the ethos behind the concept, not the execution of same. Deleting content because it is not popular (which is how I see it according to WP:CSB) is wrong. You cannot make editors provide sources, same as you can't make editors use spellcheckers. If it is a notable (but not notified) subject then it needs improving, not deletion. LessHeard vanU 22:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK this is a valid use of the PROD template. Although you might disagree with the usage for this reason, it is already accepted. I am just proposing a standard template to make the already existing process easier to do and easier for people to catch articles being proposed for deletion for this reason. Paul Cyr 22:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, yes it looks like it would suffice should the proposed policy reach consensus. As it appears to be a variant of the familiar template it obviously didn't take too much time to create; which is just as well as it doesn't look as if consensus (or an alternative) is going to happen. LessHeard vanU 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, this template isn't for implementing this proposal, this template is for making already approved process easier to execute and addresses some concerns about in invisibility of articles being PROD'ed for being unsourced. It has nothing to do with this policy proposal. Paul Cyr 07:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it begs the question why this policy was suggested in the first place, if the process and the rational already exists.

The lack of consensus here does, however, indicate that any challenge to the PROD will succeed for failure to establish a good reason for deletion, per these discussions. Those unloved articles that do get removed will hardly make a great difference to Wikipedia in terms of volume. I would suggest that some may get recreated, with or without sources. I still think you are fundamentally incorrect in your presumption that unsourced articles are detrimental to Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU 10:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I really like this template because it categorizes these proposed deletions. This way it will be easier to go through all of them and remove the prod-tag. Lack of sources is not grounds for deletion. If there is some other solid reason to delete an article, use it in the prod, or go to AfD. --Itub 05:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundant

This policy is redundant, really. If there an article has been hanging around for a long time with absolutely no sources, use proposed deletion. If someone subsequently removed the prod notice, at least you know it's on somebody's watchlist. --Tony Sidaway 11:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)