On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
By a horrible article I mean one with no verifiable
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
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.