On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
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.
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.
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...
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.
Pity.
Steve