On DontDeleteFlamebait it's suggested that signal comes from the refinement of noise. If that's true, then we ought to delete flamage, but not the bait. The bait serves as an irritant that wiki must come to terms with. This is healthy. The flames that result are part of the process of evolving signal. Delete them and replace them with signal if you want to help, but DontDeleteFlamebait itself.

If it's true.

But it ain't true.  Signal does not come from the refinement of noise.  Strong signal comes from the refinement of weak, noisy signal.  Sometimes.  Noise is not really refinable, and that's part of its definition.  Is this splitting hairs for the heck of it, or does it matter in the context of grooming a set of pages?

It does matter, if you consider flamebait to include things like posting porn to SlashDot. That is an example of noise without signal and there is nothing to do but delete it.

However, the most skilled flamebait by definition includes arguments that are almost correct. They might even be correct if the established opinion isn't quite accurate. But even if they are not correct, proving them false can help refine understanding and coverage of the topic.

So perhaps DontDeleteFlamebait could also be said as RefactorFlameBait.

----

Someone suggests...

Instead, test the value of a noisy page by deleting it.  See if anyone can reconstruct the valuable part (supposed) without cutting and pasting from the original.  Either way it's a win.  The fresh restatement of the theme is unencumbered by emotional baggage, or the absence of a substantial theme is proven.  Win win.

----

One person's signal is another person's noise, but to Wiki, they are each only one person.