2010/1/21 Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean(a)me.com>om>:
We're
historically prone to having people (especially at CSD) assume
that an earlier deletion is itself a strong black mark - if an
article was deleted earlier, there must have been a good reason for
it, they figure.
If, on NPP, I find that an article has been recreated, it's usually
either a newbie or a troll (usually an incredibly persistent newbie)
copy and pasting *the exact same article* and hitting publish. It's
usually a speedily-deleted article. Just a possible explanation for
that assumption.
I'm not saying it's not often warranted - I've done
delete-then-delete-then-delete-again a few times myself - but I have
had conversations like this in the past:
* Hi, you deleted X decent article, why?
* It was a recreation of a previously deleted article
* ...but that article shouldn't have been CSDed in the first place
* yes, but it was a recreation, and ...
[lather, rinse, repeat]
Getting rid of bad, problematic articles is, on balance, probably a
limited good. Making it less daunting to replace them with improved
articles - making the end result an *unarguable* good - is something
we should be actively looking out for.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk