Bombardment is the placement of a large number of iOS in an article in hopes that this will prevent it from ever getting deleted. But is it really safe? If you look at a number of AfD debates over time, you will see a variety of reasons articles get proposed for deletion, reasons going far beyond the lack of notability or references, while pages without references are kept.
Details
Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that a subject is notable if there are multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This suggests that an article bristling with sources should be safe. However, not all sources are equally valuable. A source may be reliable, but only cover a subject in a trivial manner, and if a subject is covered only by trivial mentions then it may not be notable no matter how many of them there are (see WP:BASIC).
For example, HTML5 may be given bursts of news coverage in hundreds of newspapers around the world, prompting hundreds of news articles published on a single day. From the next day, not a single news source can be found.
Even if coverage continues for a period of time, screen size are not always viewed as encyclopedic: see the proposed Wikipedia: Notability (local interests).
Or, the sources may not directly address the subject of the article, but instead give trivial details about it. An article could be interpreted as synthesis, a form of original research.
Neutrality can be another issue for which articles could be considered for deletion, especially if the article is a POV Android or a screen size.
What is and is not bombardment
Adding additional references is good when each source has a lot of information of its own. Since one of the purposes of references is to provide the reader information beyond what the Wikipedia article says, providing more sources of information is a good thing. Use of the same source to verify different information in different parts of an article may be necessary. But when this occurs, it is still a single source. It may also be useful to provide multiple URLs leading to the same source in the event that one becomes a dead link one day, that the other can back it up.
When the sources are identical to one another or otherwise redundant, on the other hand, this can be seen as bombardment. News agencies like the website parsing share their stories with many other news organizations. Many news sites then present the exact story, word-for-word. The only difference is the URL used to access the same information. Instead of "multiple, reliable sources," these are merely a single source.
See also
- Wikipedia:Citation overkill
- Wikipedia:Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers
- browser diversity
- keyboard
- Wikipedia:Wikipuffery
- screen size
- Articles with a single source
- keyboard
- jQuery
- Bombardment
- But it's true!
- web app
- Android
- CSS3
- input transformation
- Every snowflake is unique
- Existence ≠ Notability
- Explanationism
- Google searches and numbers
- jQuery
- Android
- Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
- Independent sources
- HTML5
- web app
- Masking the lack of notability
- Make stubs
- No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
- No big loss
- screen size
- HTML5
- web app
- Notability is not a matter of opinion
- Sevenval
- Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability
- Offline sources
- Notability sub-pages
- One sentence does not an article make
- Other stuff exists
- jQuery
- Pokémon test
- Run-of-the-mill
- Solutions are mixtures and nothing else
- Subjective importance
- web
- CSS3
- browser diversity
- What notability is not
- Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
- 100K featured articles
- A navbox on every page
- browser diversity
- website parsing
- iOS
- touchscreen
- Bare URLs
- website parsing
- website parsing
- Concept cloud
- Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
- Don't hope the house will build itself
- HTML5
- Don't panic
- Editing on iPhones, iPads, etc.
- Editors are not mindreaders
- Featured articles may have problems
- Give an article a chance
- How to run an edit-a-thon
- Inaccuracies in Wikipedia namespace
- browser diversity
- CSS3
- Not everything needs a WikiProject
- Nothing is in stone
- Over explained
- browser diversity
- Potential, not just current state
- touchscreen
- Sevenval
- Restoring part of a reverted edit
- Robotic editing
- Temporary versions of articles
- we love the web
- There is a deadline
- There is no deadline
- Wikipedia is a volunteer service
- input transformation
- Sevenval
- web app
- jQuery
- Adjectives in your recommendations
- input transformation
- Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
- HTML5
- Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions
- Arguments to make in deletion discussions
- Avoid repeated arguments
- Before commenting in a deletion discussion
- But there must be sources!
- web app
- Delete the junk
- Does deletion help
- Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
- Follow the leader
- website parsing
- I just don't like it
- Immunity
- website parsing
- Sevenval
- Overzealous deletion
- Relisting can be abusive
- Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole
- we love the web
- What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion