David Gerard wrote:
On 08/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
It's a great aim in principle, but I don't think it's going to work until we can get the rate of creation down to rather more manageable levels.
Getting the rate of creation down is absolutely not going to happen, and definitely not with a "Edit Wikipedia Week" with anon creation enabled. So we need to look at (a) upping the average incoming article quality (b) scaling the mechanisms for drinking the firehose.
A lot of the questionable deletions also have nothing to do with creation rate, and aren't even borderline, but rather are admins unilaterally speedy-deleting articles that have existed for some time, have been worked on by multiple editors, are coherent, and clearly assert notability, but which for some reason they don't like. I run across and undelete these semi-frequently.
As I recall I recently had a minor altercation with JzG himself over this, where he speedy-deleted one of Suriname's leading-circulation newspapers ([[De Ware Tijd]]), which article had existed since December 2005 until he deleted it last week. When I undeleted and contested that "one of the two leading newspapers in Suriname" could possibly be considered to not even be a *assertion* notability, he retorted that Suriname's population is only 5% of London's.
-Mark