Jeff Raymond wrote:
On the notabilty ones alone, depending on who you talk to, between 10% and 40% of those could be poor judgement without any research, and one can easily figure that, truly, all spammy articles could be rewritten to be encyclopedic. That's a lot of articles.
Yeah, but Jeff we have tens of thousands of pathetic articles marked for cleanup at it stands - more than we can possibly cope with. So why are you so keen to to keep more spammy stubs that /could/ be cleaned up?
If people want to clean up spam, we got stacks of it. The day backlogs clear is the day I'll begin to wonder if we could tweek the deletion processes to keep a little more 'spam with hypothetical potential'. Until then - keep deleting crud.