Talk:KKSM

This reminds me of the Mzoli's drama. I don't know what the solution is, but we need a system whereby someone can start creating a page with a plan of expanding it without it being shot on sight.--Jimbo Wales 21:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The solution is incredibly simple, Jim. Create a category or designation for stubs, and leave them out of the account creation statistics.  Let people debate about whether an article is worthy of stub removal status instead of immediate deletion status.  If someone creates an article that is only a sentence, let the stub process work but don't count it as a "real" article until it reaches a certain size or level of quality.


 * I'm wasn't planning on doing much with KKSM, I just wanted to try and fix a red link in the San Diego AM template because I am working on another version of the list somewhere else without having to deal with the hassle of all the WP rules. If all that happens to good intentions like that is speedy deletion, then we're going to be discouraging more and more people, and the entire project will die a slow death or be replaced by something more appealing. Chadlupkes 22:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've answered that concern on your talk page. I just fixed a red link myself last night, a glaring one that had been at Sara Berner and which had been deleted twice before for lack of content. Notability is important, but so is content. --PMDrive1061 22:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Was Wikipedia set up for 1) people who had the time and expertise to draft, develop and finalize great articles on any subject, 2) people who have the time to make quick additions and edits but not the time to really develop those articles, or 3) Both. This speedy deletion rule seems to limit contributions from the 1's of the world.  I'm sorry, I just don't agree.  I see stubs as an appropriate beginning of an article, which then can be expanded and developed by people who know more information.  I'd rather support the long tail than cut it off to focus on a fat body.  I think I'm ranting, so please don't take this personally.  I just don't agree with the policy, and can't understand why it was written or tolerated.  Chadlupkes 23:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but I believe the rule was initiated because of the very real possibility of very short and contentless articles coming across that wouldn't be much good to the end user. Admittedly, there's some discussion as to whether or not a too-short article is better than a red link. I tend to lean toward the latter, but that's just my opinion. I happened to swing by the station's website and I saw a history. I'll add some of that page's info and we should then have a good stub.--PMDrive1061 03:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)