[WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

[Snowspinner]

[[2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities]]  
and its 8 sub-articles, at present, take up 56085 words. This is five  
times as much as the whole of our coverage on Immanuel Kant.

The articles are, needless to say, utter crap - full of conspiracy  
theory rantings and POV, they read like the collected waste products  
of a month of blogging, which is, not coincidentally, exactly what  
they are.

All of them have been VfDed on two occasions a year or so ago when  
the election actually happened, and survived. In that time, they've  
only gotten worse, more bloated, and more absurd.

What can we do about these articles, and other cases of what we might  
call POV by volume - [[Jack Thompson (attorney)]] and [[Westboro  
Baptist Church]] spring to mind here as well.

My inclination, quite honestly, is to speedy all nine of these  
election articles and let people start over. Whatever comes now, a  
year after the event, cannot possibly be as appallingly bad as this.

And don't just shoot back with {{sofixit}} - there's no good fix. It  
would involve deleting 90% of all 8 of these articles, a change that  
would be quickly reverted anyway, and, with the way my editing has  
been going, probably lead to my getting another RfC, because they  
seem all the rage.

We need some sort of system that's going to untangle this kind of  
mess - something that doesn't rely on enough people with a whit of  
common sense watchlisting the articles and being willing to angrily  
revert the stupid, because, quite frankly, that obviously didn't work  
here.

Thoughts? Jimbo in particular?

-Snowspinner