On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
sprinkle it with {{fact}}, cut out any dubious
statements, and put it
on some list along the lines of ([[Wikipedia:horrible articles which
will be removed if they don't shape up really soon]]) for a couple
weeks and delete it if it doesn't get improved to where it's
verifiable and from a perspective of history (or have a chance of
quickly getting there).
Why do we delete "horrible" articles if they don't shape up "really
soon"? What's soon? Why don't we want horrible articles hanging around
for 2 years? Are "horrible" articles better or worse than stubs on the
same topics?
By the way, [[LUG]]s generally aren't attached to
streets, they're
usually attached to entire metropolitan areas. In fact, I suspect a
well-written article on the [[Suncoast Linux Users Group]], for
example, would survive a VFD vote today.
I'm sad to hear that well-writtenness is a criteria in AfDs. If it's
not well-written someone should just fix it.
Steve