[WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at 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 a horrible article I mean one with no verifiable content
whatsoever.  Depending whether or not the person creating the article
seems to be acting in good faith I'd say it should stay around between
no time at all and two weeks or so.

And IMO yes, an article which is not verifiable is worse than nothing
at all.  It should be corrected as soon as possible, and keeping it
around in the main namespace for very long is not acceptable (still
IMO, of course).

> > 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

I agree with that point to some extent (at some point you've gotta
just stop feeding the trolls though).  In any case, how well written
an article is *does* tend to affect the outcome of votes on deletion.

Anthony