[WikiEN-l] AfD Threshold being Revised Downward Again?

[Tony Sidaway]

On 9/20/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/20/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > We should speedily delete obvious rubbish, and we do.
> 
> 
> No, we don't. A ton of obvious rubbish must be sent to AfD because it's 
> not covered by the CSD. Band vanity is the most obvious example, but there 
> are many others, such as: neologisms, corporate vanity, personal 
> essays/rants. No one can give any good reason why these should be 
> deliberated upon, but they are, all in the name of making sure we never, 
> ever delete a good article by accident; even if that means making editors 
> who could be using their time to write articles deliberate on the merits of 
> garbage.
> 
> - Ryan
> 
> 
> Yes, of course you're right, though I agree with Kelly that RC patrol is 
the most frequent user of IAR.

Afd does fulfil a need by letting us delete vanity and rants with a clean 
conscience, you're quite right. What I'm saying, and I'm sorry I have to 
repeat this, is that whatever it is that AfD does, it doesn't scale.

By the way, impressions can be deceptive. I just looked at AfD for September 
1, chosen at random. I could have sworn that the delete rate in AfD must be 
around 90% if not higher, but I'll be buggered if I can find over 73 
deletes, speedies, transwikis and whatnot out of 102 nominations. 71%.

So I randomly chose September 5. 88 out of 138. 63%.

So maybe this is a recent thing? August 20. 75 out of 102. 73%.

Further back? April 12. 41 out of 68. 60%.

Definitely not what I expected.