Thursday, April 17th
Today, I replicated the last analysis, but I trimmed out edits made by the creating user so that we can see activity by other users.
If your article is going to survive the first couple of weeks, then you're uniformly better off starting it in the main namespace. If it's not going to survive, then AfC may provide a higher amount of interaction with and contributions by other users, but only since AfC switched into full gear. The relationship between AfC and Direct to Main article creations that were deleted quickly is likely to be dominated by the effect of immediate deletions of many Direct to Main articles that fail to assert notability. --EpochFail (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK. I'll save the bits. It's the same story as yesterday. In other words, removing the creating editor from the equation didn't have a meaningful effect on the interpretation of the results. However I think splitting the articles by those that were deleted quickly (within hours) and those that were not has given us insight. Next I want to look at the size of the creating revision. --EpochFail (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. Fun story. If you're going to create an article that's going to get deleted. It's going to be about 1k in size. If you create an article directly in main that's about 50 bytes, then it is very likely to survive (tiny stubs that are obviously useful?)
I just kicked off another aggregation process to filter out revisions to AfC drafts that change the status so that we can filter out some (most?) of the process stuff. --EpochFail (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)