On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro
By a horrible article I mean one with no
whatsoever. Depending whether or not the person creating the article
seems to be acting in good faith I'd say it should stay around between
no time at all and two weeks or so.
Ah, so you mean an article with no claim to notability, or a suspected
hoax? Both candidates for speedy deletion :) If all the content is
unverifiable, it could always be trimmed down without going through
AfD at all.
Well, a suspected hoax would be on the "no time at all" end of the
scale. A non-verifiable article submitted by a regular contributor
would be on the "two weeks or so" end. A non-verifiable article
submitted by a relative newbie might be somewhere in between.
As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no
idea what that phrase means.
And as for trimming down an article without going through AfD at all,
that's only possible if there's *some* verifiable content (along with
enough information to tell us how to verify it).
And IMO yes,
an article which is not verifiable is worse than nothing
at all. It should be corrected as soon as possible, and keeping it
around in the main namespace for very long is not acceptable (still
IMO, of course).
How about stubbing it and moving the content to the talk page, gently
redirecting the newbie there? I'm just speculating a bit here...
Stubbing only works if there's something there you can verify in the
first place. Stubbing an article without verifying that your stub is
accurate first is a very bad idea IMO, because it gives false
credibility to the possibly inaccurate statement.
I agree with
that point to some extent (at some point you've gotta
just stop feeding the trolls though). In any case, how well written
an article is *does* tend to affect the outcome of votes on deletion.