Jimmy Wales wrote:
Eventually producing a good encyclopedia is _exactly_
what I'm talking
about. That's why it's better to delete crap than keep it. Having tons
and tons of junk articles does not help us create a good quality
encyclopedia; it encourages more of the same.
It depends on what you mean by "junk article". If it's an article
cannot possibly prove useful to a future editor, then yes, it should be
deleted. Most stubs aren't in this category, though.
If it's an article that is not good *now* as an article, but might be
useful to a future editor, then it shouldn't be deleted---instead we
should develop some sort of labeling system so a reader who stumbles
onto it is properly notified that this article is very much a
work-in-progress and not yet ready for serious use as a reference.