The Cunctator wrote:
Some of the harm in deleting weak stubs:
- discourages potential contributors who see their work deleted, instead of
improved
- prevents people who find stubs to goad them to improve the entry from
doing so
- hard to quantify weakness--how "decent" must the entry be?
- hides measure of interest in the entry
We need to either amend the stated policy or change current deletion behavior; either way, we should discuss these issues first.
For a change, I agree with all that Cunc is saying here.
Khendon wrote:
I'm not convinced it works that way, inexperienced wikipedian that I am. Speaking personally, if I notice a "full" link then I'll likely as not pass over it. If I notice an "empty" link then I'm much more likely to consider whether I could write an article on the subject.
Speaking personally, I work the exact opposite way. A "full" link on a subject that interests me will almost certainly get followed to see what's there (and I then may correct / expand / replace completely with new text), while an "empty" link is guaranteed nothing, and much more likely to be ignored unless I'm already planning to write on that particular subject.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)