[WikiEN-l] Dealing with crap deletion nominations

[David Gerard]

Rob (gamaliel8 at gmail.com) [060123 10:04]:
> On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

> > My proposed idea remains: shut down AFD/DRV for a month. Make it three
> > months.

> Only if we expand the speedy deletion criteria accordingly.  We really don't
> want to deal with a three month backlog of garage bands and ads for Bob's
> Muffler Shop.


Straw man. Wikipedia runs 4000 new articles/day, 2000 of which are shot on
sight; AFD is maybe 200 articles a day *nominated* at present, which is a
trickle by comparison. It really will not make substantial difference
unless people start nominating to make a point. Which is shooting
behaviour.

By the way, Kim Bruning and Gmaxwell just ran numbers on Wikipedia articles
which might actually support Pure Wiki Deletion as a generally good idea.
I desperately await Kim's writeup, 'cos I doubt Greg's going to make one.
But it's the first thing I've seen resembling evidence. Basically, over 90%
of Wikipedia articles have one or two editors, and only 100-200 (out of
900k) have over 100 editors, and Kim thinks there's a good case for
declaring all those prima facie pathological until firmly proven otherwise.
So (1) being big does not mean we have to go from consensus to voting and
(2) does not mean AFD is the only possible way to run a deletion mechanism.
Fantastically interesting stuff.


- d.