Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-03-05/WikiProject report

More questions[edit]

@Dream Focus: @Green Cardamom: I wonder if I can get You to answer these questions:

In your experience what type of articles are more likely to be nominated for deletion?
- The ones that someone hates enough to go around looking for similar articles of that type. Some also check on the article's number of views watchers, going after those that have the least number of people to notice first. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, living person articles and recent topics are much more commonly nominated for deletion than historical articles. I don't think we as a culture are very good at predicting future notability for recent stuff so they tend to be more controversial. I try to err on the side of inclusion when things are unclear for newer stuff. However older stuff it's easier because time is the greatest judge. -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever noticed articles nominated for deletion as a form of censorship?
- Yeah. Look at Israel Palestine articles for an example of that. Go talk to those Wikiprojects and they'll find you some examples of obviously bias single person accounts making statements in the AFD that show their political viewpoint. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Censorship is a controversial word, but I have seen certain editors in AfD who are topic-focused, for example against alternative health care, or paranormal, or MLM companies. It's needed I guess but systematic targeting is also a fine line as it can easily tip over into doing more harm than good. -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where can interested editors find statistics about the number of articles nominated for deletion/% deleted/% kept etc over the years?
- Ask on the main ARS talk page. People have posted links to that information at times. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD statistics information for any individual editor can be seen using the AFD Statistic Tool. One thing that I found very helpful was knowledge that when an editor is voting the wrong way more than about 60% to 70% of the time over an extended period of time (as seen with the tool), it can be grounds to ask an administrator to investigate. Also anyone doing better than 60% or 70% correct !votes over an extended period is probably doing better than average. (It's not a zero sum equation since everyone can be right if everyone !votes the same way). -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does the project collaborate with other related projects, such as wp:editor retention?
- People edit on their own as they see fit. I used to patrol new pages at times and help new articles by finding references for them. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this project itself a candidate for deletion?
- Some were upset they had attention being brought to articles they could've deleted if fewer people noticed and showed up to comment. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe they were jealous there is no "Article Deletion Squadron", but that would go against the editing policy of WP:PRESERVE. -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever considered expanding to save other wiki-content such as templates, categories, etc?
- Did that at times. Whatever people ask for help with. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I'd like to see more Fair Use content disputes brought up, in particular when blocks of cited text are deleted from articles on copyright grounds. This often seems to go unnoticed and uncontested. -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]