Steve Bennett wrote:
- Wikipedia has nearly a million articles. A very large number of
them are crap. The more articles we delete, the better.
I don't think this assertion is true. There do exist articles that are not useful in the least, but the vast majority of stubs are useful starting points for a later expansion of the article.
A better solution is to better mark what is what, which is basically the long-discussed sifter project. A 2-sentence stub with no references that nobody except the original author has read is at a low level of trust. A well-developed article with many references that many people have worked on has a high likelihood of being accurate. There can be gradations in between, and of course all this only applies to particular versions.
There's no reason to *delete* a 2-sentence unverified stub, merely to make clear to our readers that it is in fact a 2-sentence unverified stub, and so ought to be read accordingly. Of course, an intelligent reader already ought to be able to recognize that for themselves, but we can help the rest along.
-Mark