3 ms·
If this is really a problem, why not just lock the article at a stub with a few verifiable facts? How is this more editorial work than deleting, and fighting a
by jessriedel 10y ago
If this is really a problem, why not just lock the article at a stub with a few verifiable facts? How is this more editorial work than deleting, and fighting a subjective battle over notability?
- resfirestar 10y agoBecause it's obviously (well, to me) better to leave the article in the default state of not existing and have the option of allowing anyone to quickly add coverage, rather than needing a committee to unlock a topic if it does become relevant. This is good adherence to the "Wikipedia Is Not Paper" idea.
- jessriedel 10y agoExcept that there already exists a whole special mechanism for patrolling frequently created-then-deleted pages. You only need to lock stub articles that repeatedly have people add unverifiable info to them. Finally, if the pages doesn't exist, then anyone who wants to exercise the "option...to quickly add coverage" doesn't have access to the info that would have been contained in the stub!