On 9/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
However this only highlights the absurdity of the extremely onerous VFU requirements. Taken alongside the worrying trend on VFU to deprecate the function of reconsidering the merits of neglected arguments, anyone would think we were trying to *avoid* remedying mistaken deletions.
The assumption being that many of the articles raised on VfU have actually been mistakenly deleted.
Of recent cases, I'd say that "List of gags in Airplane" is probably a mistaken deletion, as was "Gary takes a bath" and obviously "Elf only Inn". Yes, I think it's a fair assumption that a good proportion of articles appealed on VFU have actually been mistakenly deleted. It doesn't seem sensible to assume otherwise.
What concerns me is the presence of onerous and unnecessary barriers to undeletion. Temporary history undeletion should probably be provided as a matter of course unless there are, for instance, copyright reasons not to do so. I don't see any sense in requiring people to make a case about an article most participants cannot see.