[zarzavat]

They can just strip out any problematic content and protect it. At least leave the lede and the infobox and whatever else can be salvaged.

Deleting the article means you can't even see the edit history to see why it was deleted. Whatever good work was done by other editors is gone cannot be built on. It's extreme.

[amiga386]

> Deleting the article means you can't even see the edit history to see why it was deleted.

You can see why it was deleted without that. Picking an example deleted article; the very first line, in a red box, is the deletion log entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xpanceo

> 00:57, 28 June 2026 .... deleted page Xpanceo (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xpanceo (...))

Click on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... and you will see all the reasons why it was deleted.

Wikipedia still has the full edit history of deleted articles, they can be restored upon request. The "hard work lost" argument is moot.

It's more important to speedily remove spam; keeping non-notable articles available is a huge win for spammers who put them there, every minute of endorsement by Wikipedia by continuing to exist there is a blessing. Wikipedia should keep the lede and infobox of the "EWKRHEKWJ.COM VIAGRA SALES COMPANY" article about how EWKRHEKWJ.COM sells the very finest viagra and cialis at the lowest prices, and their address is https://EWKRHEKWJ.COM ... because think of the hard work they must've put in to the article? Just leave that up and protect it? No thanks!

[zarzavat]

The article was for a public company. There are not many viagra companies that go public, except for Pfizer.

Deletion should be reserved for cases where the entire edit history is worthless or must be deleted for legal reasons etc. Articles on notable subjects where editors have put genuine work into editing them at some point should not be deleted.