On 26/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, the
point of a deletion review is to decide whether or not the
article should be undeleted. Surely undeleting it in order to decide
to undelete it seems a bit odd...
I'd seen some DRVs where the article history (but not the article, which
stayed locked as that protected stub page) was restored for the duration of
the DRV so people could judge. is that an exception then? what makes
something qualify for that?
Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or
not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't
want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was
(asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this
is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it.
Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more
people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk