The only difference was that the worst sort of "John is my boyfriend
and ..." are not in the older articles. Aside from this, all sorts of
problems occur in new and old articles. The worst sort of spam and
self advertising is also present in long established articles that
have escaped notice. I don't think anything is gained by exempting
older articles from speedy, though I would try to channel as much new
and old into Prod, rather then Afd.
I see bias everywhere in all sort of deletion nominations, but at a
low rate. I don't think it makes sense to build a system around
preventing it--it is usually very obvious. If we were to change the
system, it should be to provide greater opportunity to rescue new
articles. I've discussed this, as have you, at the various deletion
policy pages.
On 11/17/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:59:54 -0500, "David
Goodman"
<dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I've just now looked at 25 consecutive items
up for speedy. There were:
15 new articles that were valid speedies, and 2 new ones that were not
valid speedies (one probably suitable for deletion via prod or afd),
5 older articles that were valid speedies, and 3 that were not, all
probably suitable for deletion via prod or afd).
OK, but what do we learn form this? What common factors did you
observe in the ones that were not valid? Were there common factors
in the nominator's ID?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.