Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Gwern Branwen schreef:
On 0, K P kpbotany@gmail.com scribbled:
Could it have been left alone after the copy vios were deleted if you simply didn't know enough about the topic?
- As a blank page or sub-stub at best, I guess. Doesn't sound appealing.
Blank pages are easier to edit for new contributors, who might be knowledgeable about the subject, but not about wiki-formatting, than redirects. If you suspected that the person might be notable, but that the article was a copy-vio, a blank page would probably have been better.
(On the other hand: since anonymous page creation was switched off, perhaps substubs are even more desirable.)
If the copyvio did not suggest that it would be desirable to have a page on the subject, redirects are of course fine.
One thing to consider is that notability and copyvio are separate issues. If both apply both need to be mentioned from the beginning. If an article passes the notability test, and it's only then that the copyvio issue is raised, especially by the same person it begins to look like that person is looking for an excuse to get rid of an article he doesn't like.
The other matter that arises from this is what is meant by a "suspected" copyvio. The very least that a person making a copyvio allegation should be doing is saying exactly what is being violated. Simply saying that the contributor cannot write well enough to say things that way is not evidence of a copyvio. Anything else leaves the contributor in the impossible position of trying to prove that something doesn't exist.
Ec