- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete and redirect. Daniel 05:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dubious sources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I don't see the potential for an encyclopedic article here. The prod was contested with the explanation that the phrase was redlinked from Criticism of Wikipedia - but pretty much anything can be redlinked, so this is not sufficient. GregorB 11:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redir to Criticism of Wikipedia#Use of dubious sources. Article contains a single sentence which can be better explained in the context of the larger article. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would find it daunting to be forced at gun-point to write such an article and it not being OR as the condition for it (the gun) not being fired.--Victor falk 14:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the creator of the page in question, I endorse the suggestion to redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia#Use of dubious sources. I had only been trying to fill in a requested article, but the suggestion is sufficient to me. StaticElectric 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia#Use of dubious sources, seems to be the better option now per lack of sources to expand article. Carlosguitar 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect per above discussion. Bearian 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dubious and biased sources are still a very big problem on Wikipedia. There needs to be a standard of accountability or at least some kind of blacklist established. Many Internet "news" sources, though they may have wide readership, are inherently politically biased and they exist for every conceivable extreme. Redirecting to the criticism page doesn't help, a more concrete guideline of some sort is needed.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 03:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. If Wikipedia has problems with unreliable sources, then article namespace is not the place where those issues should be dealt with. If you want to start a guideline proposal on project-space, feel free to do so, but this article isn't it.--Agamemnon2 20:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. Not notable enough to have a stand alone article. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources. Hardly more than a dictionary definition. And I don't see any authorities being quoted to justify this particular concept of dubious sources. Surely this is not intended to be Wikipedia-specific, since Wikipedia is not mentioned in the text of the article, and this is a mainspace article. EdJohnston 04:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.