No, it really isn't. Although most of the time deletionists get to them before they manage to get beyond being 'sub-stubs', they've made it quite clear that an article on a school that they are not interested in would still be deleted if it were large and factual, simply because they don't think it is 'notable'. Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
So you don't see how we'd lose from deleting 90% of
the articles we have?
I don't think anyone is arguing that we should delete 90% of the articles we have. The articles in question are maybe 1-2%, and certainly no more than 10%.
Much of the argument, and what prompted this, isn't even about strictly whether we should have certain articles, but whether we should delete particular poor instantiations of articles (substubs). It's basically an argument over whether a substub is better or worse than a red link, which I'm decidedly neutral on (both are bad, and instead of wasting time arguing over it, people on both sides ought to spend the time writing good articles in their place).
But I doubt you'll find even the most ardent deletionist who wants to delete any significant fraction of current articles, so I'm not sure who you're arguing against.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com