Ray Saintonge wrote:
Nathaniel Sheetz wrote:
On his userpage, George argues this better than me, but basically the argument is that sometimes, nothing is better than something. I'm sure that many of the articles in that backlog actually do more damage than good to the project, because someone who finds them is going to judge the quality of wikipedia as a whole based on those articles. Not finding anything, on the other hand, will probably not result in as great a negative reaction.
This is pure speculation
Indeed. Evidence of this is sorely lacking.
That said, I'm not sure what should be done about it. Deletion is tempting, but shouldn't be applied haphazardly. I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of an AfD criterion (not CSD) that allowed for the deletion of truly unorganized and difficult to use text.
The implication is that sufficient information is already there, but it's badly written. It sounds like the article is a candidate for rewriting and reorganization rather than deleting.
Yep. Using deletion as an editorial tool is abuse of the deletion system. Try writing something instead. Yes, I know it resembles "effort".
- d.