Hi Martin,
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 9/16/08, Andrew Gray wrote:
A few years ago, what would happen was they'd close it, tag the article as a speedy-deletion candidate, and mark it as "per the deletion discussion [here]", or something similar. This was sort
of
frowned on, but simply because it meant an extra step - the
deleting
admin had to check the discussion was indeed a fair close.
Maybe in theory but in practice, half the admins watching CSD will swing at anything without examination or comment.
I have the same feeling about this, but is it in fact the case, or is it not so bad? The only reason I follow the feeling is that it is a common sentiment, but I have never seen anything what the sentiment is based on, apart from slapping a CSD tag on everything that moves from some editors. When I go over CSD, I decline between 30% and 50% (which is still a rough guess). Many still end up deleted at AfD though. I have no idea what other admins going over CAT:CSD do, or how well they look through an article (and the web) before deleting it.
Back when I did a lot of AfD/CSD/etc. (or, heck, a lot of *anything* on the project), at least half the speedy nominations were seriously dodgy on any given day[0]. Sometimes I'd see other admins deleting things that should never have been deleted as speedy (usually because they couldn't be bothered, sometimes because they got abusive notes if they didn't, occasionally because the article wasn't very good and they didn't see any reason to force it to AfD). Rarely I'd see other admins keeping things I'd have deleted. There's always difference of opinion ...
[0] If CSD was full of vandalism or clearly-dodgy images, as happened fairly often, the ratio of dodgy-to-deletable would drop accordingly.