Wikipédia:Mas deve haver fontes!: diferenças entre revisões

 

'''A.''' Insisting that an article be kept only because the nominator has not followed [[WP:BEFORE]] is unhelpful and borders on [[WP:WIKILAWYER|wikilawyering]] because it focuses on [[WP:BURO|procedural quibbles]] instead of addressing the problem (and unsourced articles ''are'' a problem). If an article cannot be sourced then it should be deleted and complaining that the nominator hasn't dotted their i's and crossed their t's is not going to change that. The best thing to do is to look for sources; if the nominator has not done due diligence then references will likely be easy to find and they will be left with egg on their face. -->

 

[[en:WP:But there must be sources!]]