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