"Tony Sidaway" f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote in message news:605709b90510031651m279f3052h91646a05ac8b8d40@mail.gmail.com... [snip]
A discussion is now taking place on Wikipedia Votes for undeletion. An article about a developing games forum website was deleted a few months ago on the grounds that it was "crystal ball gazing". Now the website is up and running and someone asks for the article, with some 40 edits by to be deleted. People are sitting on VFU right now and seriously arguing that it should be kept deleted because "at the time, the VfD discussion was valid. That beggars belief.
Some choice quotes (** is me):
* Valid VfD - "organic growth"? (Nice phrase) Just because a site added some content doesn't automatically change its notability. ** actually the "organic growth" refers to the article, not to the subject...
* The fact that the site now might pass AfD does not invalidate the previous AfD...If an identical article were re-created it could validly be speedied. If a new and substantially different article were to be written about this topic, it could not be deleted without another AfD, and we can't prevent and article being written for the reason given above. (Although I wish with all my heart we could.)
* valid AfD. If you have significant new information, create a new article. **This ignoring the already-established problem that the article has been protected on a blank because of vandalism...
* Keep Deleted. I thought I had already voted on this one.
One interesting argument on the original VFD was that no article about a website can be verified through a link to the website itself. The specific datum quoted was "number of users". One would be intrigued as to how many websites it would be possible to determine the number of users through any source **other** than the website itself? One would also be intrigued as to how many websites have their existence verified through peer-reviewed published papers as suggested in the same discussion...