Wikipedia talk:But there must be sources!

Merge discussion

Wikipedia_talk:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#There_must_be_sources – czar 19:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Contentious sentence

   Wikipedia policy puts the responsibility on the editor who adds the material to reference it, not the person challenging it.

I think that's a little contentious. Going through WP:N we have:

• "Article content does not determine notability"
• "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable"

A lot of the verifiability policy applies to the content of an an article, and only really the contentious content of an article. I feel as though the verifiability policy here is being incorrectly applied to notability. There are good reason for standard to article deletion to be different for those of content deletion.

The idea that "no one's going to trust your sources unless you go find them", is eminently sensible. But I think the concept of not *providing complete and detailed documentary evidence for every statement you say immediately* is defensible. There's always a degree of work imposed upon the reader when you communicate with people, the aim is to pick an optimal midpoint (how can I get someone else to understand in the minimal amount of work)

I've seen a couple of cases of topics that are really obviously notable for people working in a field being nominatored for deletion: e.g. Taylor Spatial Frame - go to an orthopaedics outpatient clinic and you'll probably see one or two of these during the course of the day.

If you work within a particular field it can feel like really really obviously notable things that you and everyone in your profession comes across all the time are going to get listed for deletions. It can feel a bit like people claiming badgers, or spanners or kettles don't exist.

I suspect what's really going on is that there are common types of problem articles - and an article gets too close to this type of article, a harried and case-hardened editor is going to file it for deletion without that much thought. Under these contexts pointing someone at a list of results from google books, or google scholar is understandable and perhaps defensible as an initial step in a discussion.

(Talpedia (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC))

Must vs May

I've just recently seen an editor argue that saying 'there may be sources' for deprodding is a valid argument since it's not must, just may (in response to me saying this is a argument that's discussed in this essay). Any thoughts on that? Should Wikipedia:But there may be sources! be created and redirected here, and should the word may be added to the essay as an example or a FAQ item? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that this essay is about an argument used for keeping an article, something that I never argued for? As the editor in question, I would prefer not to be misunderstood. In my deprodding of the article, I advocated for it to be taken to AfD as an alternative of PROD and stated that "notability may possibly exist". AfD allows for broader community input, which I believe can be useful. I didn't argue that the article should be kept at any point in time. I merely wanted an AfD opposed to a PROD. Additionally, if you want to argue about the difference between the the words "must" and "may", a dictionary is your friend. MarkZusab (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@MarkZusab: Mamy articles that are deprodded are not AfD because there's no built-in notification for a deprod, so prod nominators are not aware of the fact their suggestions has been declined (my prod usually ask for pingback; honestly I don't remember if you pinged me back after the deprod or not, but in either case, my point is that most deprods out there do not result in any sort of feedback). You did not nominate the article in question for AfD, so effectively in my book you argued for keeping, because your actions significantly decreased the likelyhood it would be deleted. IMHO this essay is still valid, even through it was written for AfDs. You declined a proposed deletion by saying 'there may be sources, let's discuss it more'. Since you did not find any such sources, just speculated about the possibility that they may exist, well, this is what this essay discussed. Do consider that effectively each and every single prod could be declined with the rationale you used, and therefore if such rationale is permitted to stand, we might as well retire the entire prod process. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)