On 10/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Since the VfD was voted on and closed properly according to procedure VfU is unlikely to help.
In practice no, but VFU *should* undelete pages on the basis that Wikipedia is better with them than without. It's in the undeletion policy; the fact that there's a strong resistance to actually implementing the undeletion policy is saddening.
That's certainly the way it used to be, but this changed at some point: "This process should *not* be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about *process*, not content." Not sure who added that, and whether or not there was a vote to completely change the undeletion process, but that's right at the top of the page now.
Recreations of deleted pages without a VfU are
speediable
Recreation of pages deleted *under the deletion policy* (which does actually apply here).
One reason not to improve an article while it's under a VfD debate, unless you are sure it's going to win. I've seen a number of times when articles were improved significantly after most people voted, they were deleted based on those old votes, and now that newly improved content was speediable.
Isn't that an easy VFU candidate. "This article improved significantly during its time on AFD but ended up deleted based on old votes." Such requests are easily undeleted.
Try to get such articles undeleted first and see if VFU is really as ineffective as you think. BTW, were the improvements mentioned in the AFD discussion so the closing admin could take it into account?
--Mgm
--Mgm