Actually, when voting for an article, I take as many circumstances as possible into account. A school is borderline encyclopedic; George Bush's socks obviously aren't (at the very least, they don't deserve a separate article). A substub school article just makes the case for deletion sealed for me. If the article's well-written, though, I'm strongly tempted to keep the article.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
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