On 6/23/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
If it's a bad article, it's better being out of the article space. If it's a good article, it's better being *in* the article space. Some articles created by "anons" are bad, some are good. So putting these articles in another namespace would have both positives and negatives. The positives probably outweigh the negatives, because having libellous content (for instance) in the main namespace is much worse than not having even ten times the amount of good content in it.
See [[WP:AFC]]. *Almost all* articles created by anons are bad.
I was referring to the fact that it's certainly *possible* to delete crap without putting it through AfD, and is probably within policy to do so. If it isn't within policy to delete crap started by anons which no registered user would have bothered to fix and move to article space, then the policy is flawed, not the software.
WP:AFC handles that quite nicely. But I'm not sure where we're going with all this.
Of course, part of my second idea above was that we not only make it explicitly within policy to speedily delete crap started by an anon, but that we make it possible for the vast majority of established users to do so.
It's possible for anyone to nominate the article for speedy deletion. I suppose giving "deletion for anonymous articles" rights to people is possible, but fraught. Is an article that has been edited by a registered user still a candidate for mega-speedy deletion?
Steve