On 10/15/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I, for one, will in that case find -very-
inventive ways to
determine that things fit a speedy criterion. :) Realistically, though,
we need -more- cutting, not less. We've got plenty of writing done
already, but far too much resistance to cutting, a normal and healthy
part of any editing process.
If that's the way you feel, you could probably delete everything I've
created, FedEx me a box of razor blades, and come out ahead.
Less whimsically, I think too many of us carry that immediatist,
"db-notreadyforprimetime" attitude. If an article looks like crap, but
you can find a decent source or two for it, it deserves at least the
courtesy of a one-sentence merge and redirect. If somebody gives you
pennies, rather than throwing them back you probably roll them up for
dollars. Not right this instant, but there's always a jar or coffee
can and always an uneventful evening in the not-too-distant future.
Then there's the myth of notability. The "soft" deletionist will say
"I've not heard of it and with any luck I never will, ergo not
notable. Delete." (though not in those words) whereas the hard
deletionist might admit to having read the paperback book, or even
having watched the made-for-TV movie, but still (lacking the
inclination to improve content as it stands) put forth the same
patently flawed argument.
Maybe a year later the article will be started over from scratch. If
it escapes deletion under the usually mis-applied G4, it will be
because it is leaps and bounds beyond the first attempt. Better
editing skill, more sources (though not any newer ones), same topic.
Kept. Maybe never formally challenged. Decent reading too.
How many articles miraculously skip the "stub" stage? A few percent? Less?
If somebody has recent a database dump with complete edit history
("the big one") and wants to see how many articles (created in the
last two years, let's say) do not contain any revisions matching
"\{\{.*[Ss]tub\}\}" I'd really like to know.
—C.W.