On 10/12/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/13/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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