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@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:59:54 -0500, "David Goodman" dgoodmanny@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l