On Nov 7, 2007 3:27 AM, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"John Lee" wrote
In all fairness, [[Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi]] in its original state was completely unsalvageable.
You don't think that the fact that the article's creator also that day edited [[Pakistan Muslim League (Q)]] and [[General Pervez Musharraf]] was any sort of clue that we might want the article?
Hindsight is 20-20; in the first place, how many of us would look up a contributing editor's edit history when considering an article's content? A bad article is a bad article, even if the author has written 20 FAs in the past. (Although in such a case, regardless of what you decide to do about the article, it is definitely a good idea to drop a note on the author's talk page just to make sure what happened.)
Usually I would be more concerned, but there wasn't a single piece of relevant encyclopedic information in the original article, and if the content is unsalvageable, there is no onus on anyone to write something, although if at all possible you probably should. Just because we can have the article does not mean we should have it now, if having it now means having a useless piece of tripe.
IMO it's very important to separate content from topic; saying "this content has no use to us" and "this subject is no use to us" are two very different things. This is what pisses me off sometimes, when people blindly cite previous speedyings/PRODs/AfDs which were based on content as a reason not to have an article on some topic.
Johnleemk