A distinction should be made that such a vote is only for spam (like a 0 on a comment) and not because you just think it's poorly written or some other reason -- in other words, very different from a normal -1. That would, IMHO, seriously reduce the spam in the edit queue.
In order for that to approach fairness, there would have to be a log of delete events so that everyone can go verify that there is no abuse. And now you're stuck reading through spam again, verifying that someone's article wasn't maliciously deleted.
The same problem comes up with "real" email spam. You have some sort of automatic filter, but you still have to check it occassionally to make sure it didn't accidentally capture a legitimate mail. And now you're reduced to reading through all your spam again, so the filter has saved you nothing.
It's a crap problem, but I don't think you should solve it by allowing people to DELETE edits. Instead, give them the option to HIDE a particular article (for that user only). That way, people can ignore the crap once they recognize it as crap, but they can't possibly abuse this priviledge.
If enough people hide the article, then at some point you could decide to delete it. This would in essence let us "vote" on the edit queue, something we can't do right now. Except there is only ONE kind of vote: "Hide it."
Please direct SPAM to email@example.com
[ Parent ]