Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Don't get me started on newpages. It is truely horrible. Apart from the bot-like entries of new villages in somewhere, new astroids, or sports players from template, I do think 60 to 80 % should be deleted. And of that, 50% as crystal clear speedies. We need plenty more carefull, deliberate, newpage patrollers. The problem is, the pages that should be kept, about half of those look just as bad as the really horrible ones. And getting one page to a more or less decent standard, slightly refd, tagged, and ready to enter the motherload, takes me as much time as about 20 good, or about 8 speedy pages. And then, when you *do* mess up (and I do, every once in a while), the comment that I do more to break down wikipedia then to build it up is not exactly encouraging.
It is because of the fact that noteworthy new articles often look just as bad as an one that is not noteworthy that newpage patrollers must make sure to put on article on AFD or up for speedy delete due to the article's topic and not the article's content at the time. The fact is that new articles are mostly in very bad shape and so people are quick to jump on them. However, some of these articles, despite their current state are actually noteworthy and should be kept and improved.