On 24 Sep 2004, at 18:30, JAY JG wrote:
If one can massively re-write any article under VfD
and then claim
that all previous votes are void, it makes a mockery of the VfD
process.
I strongly disagree. I feel that it is very important that there be the
option to improve an article while it's on VfD.
Frequently, articles get listed on VfD because of valid concerns. Also
not infrequently such concerns then are addressed by altering the
article but not deleting it. It is important that that remain possible.
One example:
- I once stumbled across the article [[Über]] which was listed on VfD.
The reason for listing it was that people felt it was unencyclopedic
(which it was at the time it was listed) and that the article should be
entered into Wiktionary and removed from the WP.
- I edited the article, in a way that I felt made it more encyclopedic
(albeit far from perfect), thereby addressing the root problem:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?
> title=%dcber&diff=3687497&oldid=3663829
- This resulted in an eventual
consensus to keep the article, which has
come along nicely since:
(It's still far from perfect, but it contains valid, worthy
information.)
It would IMHO be stupid to disallow pursuing such an avenue.
And yes, after a significant article change a new vote should be held.
Granted, I too would not want to allow random editing purely ''with the
aim'' of voiding previously cast votes.
Granted too, this is a gray area.
However, in this case I grant Ed the benefit of the doubt and don't
think that his motivation was voiding somebody's votes.
<em><b>
Because of the above, I think it's a Very Bad Thing to VfD-list and
protect an article at the same time. The two processes are bound to
conflict. Pick your poison but don't drink from both cups at the same
time.
</b></em>
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com