On 9/9/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
That happens. It rarely works however, because those who do not know are unwilling to change their vote or are "drive-by VfD-voters." That is, votes on an article then goes to the next one and votes again completely forgetting about the first article. Besides, with the VfD-scheme those who do know only have a few days to prove themselves. Which is not a lot of time if you have other things to do than edit an encyclopedia.
I don't know about frequencies, but I do agree that what you have described happens. Personally I think it would be nice if there were standards by which to request a re-vote. That is, a given voter could say, "This article has been significantly changed since it was originally nominated and the original nominating criteria may no longer apply. I'd like to re-list this and see what happens." Maybe one or two users could certify it or something like that. Of course you'd want some restrictions on it so that people don't try to "game the system" by re-listing and re-listing. Hmm. Anyway, just a passing thought.
Of course, regardless, it is *still* up to those writing the articles to make their notability clear when they write it. An argument from authority is useless on an anonymous encyclopedia. If the topic really is that notable, someone else will write the notable article at a later point, one would think.
FF