Apologies; I'd thought you were saying that userspace was the appropriate setting for in-progress articles, and that this simply needed to gain widespread knowledge.
But I think the "grace period" idea scarcely scratches the surface. Is it better if the article is given time to mature before it's deleted entirely by people dogmatically adhering to some arbitrary criterion of notability?
If Wikipedia is to remain a useful resource and to realize its unique potential, deletionism neesd to be vigorously suppressed. If the current Wikipedia culture is too far gone, then perhaps it needs to be forked and maintained in a culture that regards the fact that enough collaborative effort was made to produce a coherent article as itself sufficient evidence of "notability".
But I think the "grace period" idea scarcely scratches the surface. Is it better if the article is given time to mature before it's deleted entirely by people dogmatically adhering to some arbitrary criterion of notability?
If Wikipedia is to remain a useful resource and to realize its unique potential, deletionism neesd to be vigorously suppressed. If the current Wikipedia culture is too far gone, then perhaps it needs to be forked and maintained in a culture that regards the fact that enough collaborative effort was made to produce a coherent article as itself sufficient evidence of "notability".