http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclu...
Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects commenting, and everyone putting in their two cents. Somewhere in the middle is a debate struggling to get out: is the volume of reversions indicative of good gatekeeping (poor edits to popular and well-developed articles have little chance of sticking), or bad gatekeeping (established editors assert ownership)? Stats from 2007 and 2009 show a step-change of some sort, as we know, but don't really prove that there is a current trend (we could be going sideways).
Charles