On 6/23/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)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