Category talk:Articles lacking sources
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This category was nominated for deletion on July 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was delete. |
|
A deletion review related to the Category:Articles lacking sources was concluded on August 20, 2006 with the result of was undelete. See also: related ANI archives. |
Shouldn't this be Category:Articles that lack sources? "Which" should be preceded by a comma... ugen64 03:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed it should. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs for an explanation of "which" and "that". Zeromacnoo 17:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Decategorisation
How do you remove an article from this category once references have been added?--shtove 09:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- You can simply remove the {{unreferenced}}, {{Unsourced}} and/or {{Primarysources}} tag in the article. --Hurricane111 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I added a further reading section to the article Lz x-ray. The book I added is a source that can verify the entire article, but I wasn't sure if that was the proper way to source the article, so I did not remove the tag. Can a more experienced editor please take a look at it, and remove the tag if appropriate? I also created a talk page. Crockspot 00:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Record Label Citations
How do you cite sources for a record label that has no sources other than the records themselves? I made a page for a record label but there is just scattered info online about it and I made the page just from the records i own. I just took from the record label number on the LPs themselves.
[edit] Renaming category
Has anyone given thought to renaming this category? I noticed that our featured article today (Lothal) has lots of footnotes sprinkled throughout, but at the bottom of the page is "Articles lacking sources". It doesn't "lack sources" - it would simply be even better if a source was found for a particular statement.
Suggestions:
- Articles needing more sources
- Articles with unsourced statements
Stevage 08:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was thinking along the same lines as you were and was trying to come up with a good category name when I found your comment. So I stole Category:Articles with unsourced statements :) Articles that contain {{Citation needed}} (or its many redirects) now point to Category:Articles with unsourced statements, while those containing {{Unsourced}} (or its many redirects) continue pointing to this category. —Seqsea (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
We might need more than one template for different situations. Besides the above, I think a good one might be "Articles lacking reliable sources". I put articles in this category sometimes if their sources are things like blogs or personal websites (such sources may be appropriate, but are usually not). -- Kjkolb 12:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletionism vs cleanup and cite, facing (Judaism) articles ==
Hi, I have just place the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you. IZAK 09:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Wikipedia that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Wikipedia who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing {{cleanup}} or {{cite}} tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know.
- Two recent examples will illustrate this problem:
-
- 1) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Wikipedia. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote).
-
- 2) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept.
- As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course.
- This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective.
- Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors.
- Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified.
- Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- This may be a problem but I seriously don't think it's ONLY for articles about Judaism. --Liface 22:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. And I don't see why it had to be posted here, anyway. wikipediatrix 15:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- This may be a problem but I seriously don't think it's ONLY for articles about Judaism. --Liface 22:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Canna 'Roi Humbert'
All material is cited from Dr Koshoos papers, which are referenced. There is no original research. Why say it is lacking sources?
- The question is, rather- why are you asking *here* rather than at the article's discussion page?
- → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References v See also and External links
I have just started getting involved in this project and would like to know where I can read up on a Definition of sources as I feel some articles have been unfairly targeted, two very different examples are [[Anal Sex]] which was brimming with references I left an entry on the talk page asking for feedback. The other was [[List of congenital disorders]] which has been listed since December 2005 I simply removed that and gave my reasons on the talk page, which in a nutshell are that in a list of that nature all the citations to establish it on that list should be in the article. It seems that some articles are targeted simply because the sources are provided but not numbered under the reference section, which means the tagger has seen what appears to be an unvalidated statement and simply tagged it because of the editing style. I have a preference for numbered references as it makes it easier to do follow up research, however both styles are acceptable--Matt 12:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
