Thanks for the welcome, MB. I've found that I'm a victim of the 32KB edit limit and can't leave a comment on Talk:Vote for Deletion. I don't know how best to air this comment, but here it is....
I think people, newbies in particular, are likely to click on a link to an non-existing article and face its edit page. Some may start a new nonsense article that swiftly gets marked for deletion. I DON'T THINK DELETION IS THE PROPER RESPONSE. The fact that a link was followed to nothing suggests that something ought to be there. That a new nonsense page be orphaned ought be a factor in considering deletion. If it is linked, the article ought be marked for attention, not deletion. BobCMU76 17:12 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
The reason that pages whose entire contents run "this iz coooll!!" are deleted is because they are no use to anybody. If somebody chooses to write over the content with a proper article or stub then that's fine of course, and then the article can stay, but people don't always have the knowledge or inclination to do that. Of course, in almost all cases, something should be at the title that's been made, but in almost all cases it shouldn't be "this iz coooll!!". In such cases, deletion seems perfectly reasonable to me. --Camembert
I'm going to archive some of this later. I appreciate the help in orienting me more to Wikipedia ways. I think my response to the DELETION issue will be to periodically review the Deletion log for instance of the type of page I described -- the non-orphan empty link -- and put stubs where I can. Some of the gardeners might consider the same approach. BobCMU76 18:23 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
you might try the Wanted Pages list. That lists unwritten pages by how much they are linked to, and not by whicch idiots have written "this sux" on them -- Tarquin 18:28 May 14, 2003 (UTC)~
