Wikipedia talk:AFD 100 days

message: Awesome piece of research, Dragonsflight. Thanks for spending your time on it. Pcb21| Pete 20:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Dragons flight 22:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur. Excellent stuff. Weve been talking for years in terms of general sentiments and speculations about how VFD/AFD voting works. Now theres a much better idea of the process and this should make inclusionists like myself think more highly of the necessary excrement processes. By the way, regarding the anomalies, would it be possible to write some code which prints just the anomalies? For each line which is not accounted for as part of a vote, or definitively found to be a keep, delete, merge , etc., there still might be a way to extract, separately examine, or reinclude that info. -St|eve 17:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who regularly closes AFD's, I'm not looking forward to giving everyone with an axe to grind a comprehensive list of every AFD I've closed slightly off the margin. --causa sui talk 23:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's the purpose nor would it work like that, since it doesn't account for sockpuppets and the like. I find the data very interesting, I think Dragons flight has done a good job :) -- Joolz 15:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: So I appear to be guiltier than I thought. I just spend too much time in AfD, that's all. I have one genuine question though. Despite the claim I very reliably delete below 2/3, I simply don't. Only very rarely do I do so, although I do view 2d-1k as deleteable, usually. How was this statistic calculated; I wonder if it includes redirects and merges as deletes? The difference between those and deletions is quite important in closures. I wonder if you are measuring the percentage of 'votes' above which the admin acts a certain, high, proportion of the time? Oh, one thing just occured to me: I was unable to delete for the entire period covered in the header since I only turned admin on the 9th Sept: has that been changed? -Splashtalk 02:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Answering myself: redirect = delete and merge = keep. Hmmm, perhaps. That would explain why I and several others somtimes appear to delete below two-thirds, in cases such as unanimous redirect/delete and I redirect absent a consensus to delete. And the admin thresholds are the modal thresholds, I think? -Splashtalk 02:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Awesome piece of research

message: I close a lot of controversial AfD's, often having socks. As you know, socks love to vote keep over and over. I ignore these... and thus I delete something like that... So it says my threshold is 61%, though I have never deleted an article with less than 66%. Please note that socks screw with your script? Redwolf24 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threshold major problem 

message: I feel that this page needs to be updated soon. For example, the last analysis was from June 1 2005 to September 8 2005. Nearly one year has passed. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here here, although it may get bogged down with more activity. Any chance of seeing another run, perhaps over a shorter time period if it would be too much of a drain for 100 days? James086Talk | Contribs 14:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update? 

message: Very interesting. Thanks for the good work.
The one bit of data that I'd like to see that wasn't on the page is a comparison of the % outcomes for the different nominators (and perhaps also a comparison between frequent nominators and infrequent nominators). BlankVerse 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most nominations 

message: *User:Ikip/AfD on average day Ikip (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 82.6% of articles put up for deletion were by new users