The Cunctator wrote:
Some of the harm in deleting weak stubs:
* discourages potential contributors who see their work deleted, instead of
improved
* prevents people who find stubs to goad them to improve the entry from
doing so
* hard to quantify weakness--how "decent" must the entry be?
* hides measure of interest in the entry
We need to either amend the stated policy or change current deletion
behavior; either way, we should discuss these issues first.
For a change, I agree with all that Cunc is saying here.
Khendon wrote:
I'm not convinced it works that way, inexperienced
wikipedian that I
am. Speaking personally, if I notice a "full" link then I'll likely as
not pass over it. If I notice an "empty" link then I'm much more
likely to consider whether I could write an article on the subject.
Speaking personally, I work the exact opposite way. A "full" link on a
subject that interests me will almost certainly get followed to see
what's there (and I then may correct / expand / replace completely with
new text), while an "empty" link is guaranteed nothing, and much more
likely to be ignored unless I'm already planning to write on that
particular subject.
-- brion vibber (brion @
pobox.com)