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.