On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
sprinkle it with {{fact}}, cut out any dubious statements, and put it on some list along the lines of ([[Wikipedia:horrible articles which will be removed if they don't shape up really soon]]) for a couple weeks and delete it if it doesn't get improved to where it's verifiable and from a perspective of history (or have a chance of quickly getting there).
Why do we delete "horrible" articles if they don't shape up "really soon"? What's soon? Why don't we want horrible articles hanging around for 2 years? Are "horrible" articles better or worse than stubs on the same topics?
By a horrible article I mean one with no verifiable content 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.
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).
By the way, [[LUG]]s generally aren't attached to streets, they're usually attached to entire metropolitan areas. In fact, I suspect a well-written article on the [[Suncoast Linux Users Group]], for example, would survive a VFD vote today.
I'm sad to hear that well-writtenness is a criteria in AfDs. If it's not well-written someone should just fix it.
Steve
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.
Anthony