Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Don't rush into a discussion pointing at lots of policies without expanding on why you're doing so. |
Wikipedia is not a game of Whac-A-Mole. You don't score points for seeing how many articles facing deletion that pop up daily you can mark down in as quick a time as possible.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks newcomers can face on Wikipedia is having to deal with an article that is sitting in Articles for Deletion and staring at the onslaught of "Delete per WP:RS Delete per WP:OR Delete per WP:GNG", often quickly following the article's nomination. In particular, they may feel that you're trying to pull rank by deleting their work.
Stop and think for a second. Does the article really have no reliable sources, or could you just not be bothered to find any? While online citations are the easiest references to uncover, citations can also take the shape of books, journals and newspapers. Because they may take more time and effort to find, it can be easy to assume that nobody's honestly going to look for them, you've done your due diligence, so delete already! Wham! That's another one out of the way. That'll keep that pesky lot at the Article Rescue Squad at bay for a bit!
If you're confident an article will not satisfy the general notability guidelines, take time out to explain why not. Maybe the newcomer will understand. Maybe somebody else will suggest sources you haven't tried and reverse the consensus. Please do not do anything that you think is not appropriate.