Viajero wrote:
It is fine in principal to be against deleting articles but that implies ACTION in concrete terms, but since we are a collection of volunteers, this doesn't always follow. While I have nothing against incomplete articles, of which there are obviously many in WP, I am strongly against have genuinely *bad* articles -- such as the Palestinian viewpoints article -- in the encyclopedia. They should be fixed immediately or deleted -- one or the other.
Nicely put! As a group of volunteers we can't expect that somebody will want to fix a bad article. So giving a bad article exposure for one last chance to at least become a stub is a good thing.
Furthermore, the mere existence of bad articles encourages more bad articles to be added. Incomplete is one thing - that is relatively easy to fix - but bad is another and if often much more difficult to fix.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Furthermore, the mere existence of bad articles encourages more bad articles to be added. Incomplete is one thing - that is relatively easy to fix - but bad is another and if often much more difficult to fix.
I agree. But if the topic is _itself_ valid, then the right thing to do with a bad article is to fix it, not delete it or redirect it. It's usually pretty easy to go to an article, and move the bad parts to the talk page along with a courteous request for more documentation, or rewriting of some biased terminology or whatever.
--Jimbo