At 11:13 PM 8/24/02 -0700, Lee Crocker wrote:
> I would rather the policy was not changed. Most
people can see
> that a short but important article could be
expanded. I think
> the articles show up on the stub list anyway
for
folks to work
> on. Basically the change means that other
peoples
work is to be
thrown
away.
I think you misundertand. He isn't talking about
deleting
stubs. He's talking about deleting articles
with
NO content
at all, so there's no "work" to
throw away. And
I'm entirely
on Toby's side--no article at all is much
better
than an article
with no content.
No, I don't misunderstand. The suggested policy
change is to begin deleting
short articles such as, for example [[Tucson,
Arizona]] which unless it has
been expanded is simply "A large city in southern
[[Arizona]]. No one would
care about deletion of an empty article; that can be
done under the
existing policy.
No, you misunderstand. The suggestion that when
someone, usually a vandal, creates a page that says
"safhsakfh", or creates a blank page, that article
should be deleted.
The current policy reflects the opinion that the
content of such a page should be removed, but the
administrative delete is unnecessary if the page would
be a normal article title. The counter-argument is
that such an empty page makes it appear that there is
an article already written when there is one.
No oneis suggesting that stub articles be deleted.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes