Yes, it is. Especially considering that I too was mainly "trawling the new Python questions" for similar reasons, and being dismayed at how many dupes there were and how hard it was to find an actually good version of that question to use as the duplicate target for something that was constantly asked.

> I saw this constantly, so frequently that I'd be hard pressed to answer with specifics.

Without specifics I really can't engage with that, sorry. I would encourage you to check out the [reopen-closed] tag on the meta site, in chronological order (or take a random sample) and see what kinds of things people think should be reopened and how off-base they are (and also see how it is explained that things are in fact duplicates).

As it happens, I have a single "saved" (site bookmarking feature) question on the meta site with that tag, saved because I wrote what I think is a useful reference answer to the general question of why duplicates get closed so quickly: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/422581

> often because the original answer was ancient and obsolete

This does not make a question "not a duplicate". The fact that there are different ways to solve the problem now, doesn't make it not the same problem. It is, instead, a reason to write a new answer, but we still want all the high-quality answers in the same place.

From time to time, a new "canonical" gets chosen for FAQs, because the community recognizes that it's better quality. "Up-to-date" is one consideration in that equation. But a lot of the time, people argue that an old Q&A should be disregarded or replaced simply because it is old, and this is often just not true. For example, the question 'What does if __name__ == "__main__": do?' (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/419163) was posted in 2009; as it turns out, it still does the same thing in Python 3.15 and the reasons for using (or not using) it are the same as well.