76:
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 as we do not have any basis for knowing if it is reliable, accurate, and neutral. Even if the information is those things, since it is unverifiable, we (and our readers) have no more reason for trusting the claim than for trusting any of the other bad unsourced claims out there. Unreferenced articles are inherently bad quality.
32:
574:" means that the nominator asserts a good-faith belief either that there are no valid, reliable sources for the topic, or that an article limited to verifiable sources could never be more than a stub. This means more than that the article lacks valid sources. Suggested criteria include one or more of the following:
388:
an article's references are, but whether they exist at all. If the references, further reading and external links sections are blank and sources aren't mentioned in the text, then it would be eligible. If the article is subject to questions concerning eligibility of sources and whether particular
262:
an article's references are, but whether they exist at all. If the references, further reading and external links sections are blank and sources aren't mentioned in the text, then it would be eligible. If the article is subject to questions concerning eligibility of sources and whether particular
186:
an article's references are, but whether they exist at all. If the references, further reading and external links sections are blank and sources aren't mentioned in the text, then it would be eligible. If the article is subject to questions concerning eligibility of sources and whether particular
481:
Some articles are purely for navigation within
Knowledge (XXG); disambiguation pages are the most obvious examples. These need no sources. There may be other exceptions, including a credible promise to source by a certain date. Consensus here should be taken strictly; any user is free to move the
75:
Knowledge (XXG) now has over 1.5 million articles. The main problem we face has long since shifted from coverage to reliability, accuracy, and neutrality. One of the most important efforts in this regard is referencing all the articles we already have. Unfortunately, this is an impossible task,
227:, this is carefully worded to ensure that "almost all articles that can be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus." Appeals to this rule shall satisfy all the restrictions agreed by consensus.
219:
Any article deleted under this criterion shall be undeleted if a reference is provided or if the article's creator agrees to add references shortly after undeletion; copies of the text should be made available in user-space at
171:. Tagging gives editors the warning and time to fix a problem. Allowing deletion any time after 14 days without a source would cause more good faith editors to become upset at the loss of their work without notice.
50:
133:" here is to be interpreted broadly. If in doubt, don't use speedy deletion. You should add a note on the article creator's user talk page when an article has been tagged and when it has been deleted.
396:" here is to be interpreted broadly. References may be in-line citations, works in a reference section, external links, or mentions of a source in the text; questions of whether the references are
270:" here is to be interpreted broadly. References may be in-line citations, works in a reference section, external links, or mentions of a source in the text; questions of whether the references are
67:
594:
This process does not apply to redirects, including soft redirects, nor to anything not in article space, nor to redirects or any content that would not be proper to nominate for AfD.
389:
statements are covered by the provided sources, that is outside the scope of this policy. The policy simply requires the article to have at least one reference, regardless of quality.
372:
Any unsourced article may be moved to userspace until it has at least one reference. Discussion may be helpful in finding a source, and an archive of unsourced articles may be useful .
263:
statements are covered by the provided sources, that is outside the scope of this policy. The policy simply requires the article to have at least one reference, regardless of quality.
187:
statements are covered by the provided sources, that is outside the scope of this policy. The policy simply requires the article to have at least one reference, regardless of quality.
553:
arguments should be rare, but can exist. Ideally, a project or an active editor with a good reputation would be willing to take responsibility for finding sources and a deadline set.
562:
Surviving a UfD with a consensus of "keep" means that sources exist. Renomination should be an extreme rarity; however, the sourced article may satisfy other requirements of the
645:
Any article deleted under this criterion shall be undeleted if adequate references are cited in the request; copies of the text should be made available in user-space at request.
246:
Any unsourced article may be moved to userspace until it has at least one reference. You should add a note on the article creator's user talk page when an article has been moved.
556:
Early closure resulting in deletion should be avoided, unless the article is a biography of a living person, or there is firm proof that no reliable sources can possibly exist.
362:
If the major contributor has a page with the same name, try one of the others; please do not move to your own userspace, although you are free to copy the article once moved.
648:"Transfer to UfD" becomes a possible result of an AfD, if there is a consensus that the only issue is lack of sources and that additional time is needed to allow research.
642:
UfD would have the same structure as AfD. The separation is intended for clarity, and to avoid the administrative headache of two time limits on the same process page.
198:" means references may be in-line citations, works in a reference section, external links, or mentions of a source in the text; questions of whether the references are
153:" is intended to allow enough time for editors to see that the article they have written has been tagged and to find a reliable source to satisfy the criterion.
518:
Any article nominated for deletion as unverifiable may be sent through the UfD process. UfD will be similar to AfD, but will have important differences.
625:
Note that any deletion under UfD could be done faster under AfD, if the closing admin adheres to current policy and ignores unvotes not based on sources.
619:
Sixty days should be enough time to find sources or start a rewrite. Articles that don't get looked at once in sixty days probably have no watchers.
103:
458:
After 5 (14?) days, if no source has been added, move the article to the userspace of the major contributor, or the most major active contributor.
664:
54:
39:
535:
Avoid nominating an article that is being written or extensively revised, unless the active editors repeatedly refuse to provide sources.
95:
Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources.
547:
arguments must be based either on having made some effort to find sources, or a reasonable argument that such sources cannot exist.
651:
For the first 90 days, a daily listing of UfD nominations should be added to the AfD daily page. This would increase visibility.
622:
Unlike the other proposals, the quality of the sources is explicitly in play. That is another reason for allowing fourteen days.
628:
Blind, mass nomination is less of a risk than under AfD, because we have 14 days to react. Either way, no one should violate
86:
If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on that topic.
616:
Transfer of vanity/spam articles to AfD is intended to permit prompt deletion, rather than sticking us with them for 14 days.
49:
for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
216:
articles are now, to allow other editors to add references. The tag should be removed if and only if a reference is added.
501:
Part of maintaining and archiving this page is making sure that any resulting cross-namespace redirects are being deleted.
563:
529:
107:
94:
85:
541:
arguments must be based either on sources having been provided, or the article being adequately sourced already.
426:
311:
504:
If an article is moved back into the empty space without a source or consensus, we recommend taking it to AfD.
359:
If an article is moved back into the empty space without a source or consensus, we recommend taking it to AfD.
469:
414:
288:
323:
If an article relocated to userspace becomes sourced, it may be moved to the article space without debate.
462:
46:
224:
439:
445:. That template links to the article and to its talk page, where any discussion should take place.
590:
The article has been tagged as unsourced for at least 60 days and is not being actively rewritten.
584:
Proof that the sources cited do not exist or do not support the major contentions of the article.
354:
We are not all admins; and an RfD tag may prevent a move war. This is a judgment call for admins.
629:
578:
An argument from verifiable sources that no reliable sources can possibly exist for the topic.
341:
213:
168:
607:" is intended to allow more time for editors to search for sources than an AfD would allow.
498:
AfD and Prod may be applied to articles under consideration, and those moved, under WP:RfS.
345:
231:
610:
The restriction of discussion is intended to keep the discussion focused on the one issue.
559:
Vanity articles and inappropriate nominations may be administratively transferred to AfD.
483:
125:. Any article which was created after this criterion was adopted that remains without
658:
298:
17:
351:
When an article is moved, the redirect should be noted on RfD; or deleted directly.
320:
Move it to userspace of the major contributor, or the most major active contributor.
632:, and admins may defend Knowledge (XXG) against the consequences of violations.
528:
The process should not be applied to disambiguation pages or those written in
525:
The nominator is expected to have made a reasonable effort to find sources.
465:
that the article does not need a source, tag the article's talkpage with
452:
editor, in one of three ways, all of which should be noted on this page:
304:, this must be substituted, which will produce a dated tag with category.
581:
Reasonable (not heroic) and fruitless efforts to find any sources.
455:
Add a source to the article and remove the tag from the article.
68:
Knowledge (XXG):Proposed deletion process for unsourced articles
129:
references 14 days after tagging may be deleted at any time. "
26:
613:
Separation from AfD is intended to perform the same function.
495:
Moved articles should have categories and tags commented out.
333:
Moved articles should have categories and tags commented out.
367:
Proposed text #3:Request for
Sources, then move to Userspace
587:
Flagrant refusal by the active editors to provide sources.
400:
must be settled by discussion, normally at V, AfD or PROD.
274:
must be settled by discussion, normally at V, AfD or PROD.
202:
must be settled by discussion, normally at V, AfD or PROD.
378:
This does not apply to disambiguation pages and redirects
252:
This does not apply to disambiguation pages and redirects
212:
Tagged articles shall be listed in a central location as
138:
This does not apply to disambiguation pages and redirects
106:, then, is merely an extension of current practice and
482:article. Disputes on the matter should be taken to
317:to the talk page of all substantial contributors.
432:to the talk page of all substantial contributors.
234:; when doing so, they must ignore this one too.
8:
182:" means that sourcing is not a question of
167:" is intended to reduce the possibility of
112:Any edit lacking a source may be removed
160:". This CSD does not act retroactively.
158:created after this criterion was added
522:The time period is 14 days, not five.
7:
435:Note the article on this page with
230:There are times when admins should
196:" here is to be interpreted broadly
241:Proposed text #2:Move to Userspace
25:
448:RfS nominations may be closed by
66:For an alternative proposal, see
665:Knowledge (XXG) failed proposals
461:If after 5 (14?) days, there is
30:
384:Sourcing is not a question of
258:Sourcing is not a question of
102:This proposed addition to the
1:
514:Unverified for Deletion (UfD)
108:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
225:criteria for speedy deletion
104:criteria for speedy deletion
681:
566:and be nominated for AfD.
53:or initiate a thread at
165:14 days after tagging
110:, which states that "
18:Knowledge (XXG):CSDUA
79:Keep in mind that:
410:Tag article with
284:Tag article with
62:
61:
16:(Redirected from
672:
509:Proposed text #4
474:
468:
444:
438:
431:
427:unsourcedarticle
425:
419:
413:
316:
312:unsourcedarticle
310:
303:
297:
293:
287:
232:ignore all rules
118:Proposed text #1
55:the village pump
34:
33:
27:
21:
680:
679:
675:
674:
673:
671:
670:
669:
655:
654:
639:
600:
564:Deletion Policy
516:
511:
492:
472:
466:
442:
436:
429:
423:
417:
411:
407:
369:
336:Moved articles
330:
314:
308:
301:
295:
291:
285:
281:
243:
209:
146:
120:
58:
31:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
678:
676:
668:
667:
657:
656:
653:
652:
649:
646:
643:
638:
637:Implementation
635:
634:
633:
626:
623:
620:
617:
614:
611:
608:
599:
596:
592:
591:
588:
585:
582:
579:
568:
567:
560:
557:
554:
548:
542:
536:
533:
526:
523:
515:
512:
510:
507:
506:
505:
502:
499:
496:
491:
488:
479:
478:
477:
476:
470:nosourceneeded
459:
456:
446:
433:
420:
406:
405:Implementation
403:
402:
401:
390:
381:
380:
374:
373:
368:
365:
364:
363:
360:
357:
356:
355:
349:
334:
329:
326:
325:
324:
321:
318:
305:
280:
279:Implementation
277:
276:
275:
264:
255:
254:
248:
247:
242:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
221:
217:
208:
207:Implementation
205:
204:
203:
188:
172:
161:
154:
145:
142:
141:
140:
119:
116:
100:
99:
90:
73:
72:
60:
59:
45:
44:
35:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
677:
666:
663:
662:
660:
650:
647:
644:
641:
640:
636:
631:
627:
624:
621:
618:
615:
612:
609:
606:
602:
601:
597:
595:
589:
586:
583:
580:
577:
576:
575:
573:
565:
561:
558:
555:
552:
549:
546:
543:
540:
537:
534:
531:
530:summary style
527:
524:
521:
520:
519:
513:
508:
503:
500:
497:
494:
493:
489:
487:
485:
471:
464:
460:
457:
454:
453:
451:
447:
441:
434:
428:
421:
416:
415:please source
409:
408:
404:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
382:
379:
376:
375:
371:
370:
366:
361:
358:
353:
352:
350:
347:
343:
339:
335:
332:
331:
327:
322:
319:
313:
306:
300:
290:
289:please source
283:
282:
278:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
256:
253:
250:
249:
245:
244:
240:
233:
229:
228:
226:
222:
218:
215:
211:
210:
206:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
166:
162:
159:
155:
152:
148:
147:
143:
139:
136:
135:
134:
132:
128:
124:
117:
115:
113:
109:
105:
97:
96:
91:
88:
87:
82:
81:
80:
77:
71:
69:
64:
63:
56:
52:
51:the talk page
48:
43:
41:
36:
29:
28:
19:
604:
593:
572:Unverifiable
571:
569:
550:
544:
538:
517:
490:Housekeeping
480:
449:
397:
393:
385:
377:
337:
328:Housekeeping
271:
267:
259:
251:
199:
195:
191:
183:
179:
175:
164:
157:
150:
137:
130:
126:
123:Unreferenced
122:
121:
111:
101:
93:
84:
78:
74:
65:
37:
340:subject to
223:Like other
194:References
180:references
131:References
38:This is a
551:More time
463:consensus
394:Reference
268:Reference
47:Consensus
42:proposal.
659:Category
630:WP:POINT
398:adequate
386:how good
272:adequate
260:how good
220:request.
200:adequate
184:how good
176:Without
605:14 days
342:WP:PROD
294:; like
214:WP:PROD
151:14 days
598:Notes:
545:Delete
440:WP:RfS
346:WP:AfD
169:biting
144:Notes:
40:failed
484:WP:RM
539:Keep
422:Add
344:and
307:Add
299:prod
114:".
450:any
338:are
178:any
127:any
661::
486:.
473:}}
467:{{
443:}}
437:{{
430:}}
424:{{
418:}}
412:{{
315:}}
309:{{
302:}}
296:{{
292:}}
286:{{
603:"
570:"
532:.
475:.
392:"
348:.
266:"
192:"
190:"
174:"
163:"
156:"
149:"
98:"
92:"
89:"
83:"
70:.
57:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.