On 5/10/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
On the notabilty ones alone, depending on who you talk to, between 10%
and
40% of those could be poor judgement without any research, and one can easily figure that, truly, all spammy articles could be rewritten to be encyclopedic. That's a lot of articles.
Yeah, but Jeff we have tens of thousands of pathetic articles marked for cleanup at it stands - more than we can possibly cope with. So why are you so keen to to keep more spammy stubs that /could/ be cleaned up?
Your definition of spam is different than his (and mine). There's nothing wrong with a stub unless it specifically violates a policy.
Mgm