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.