On 9/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
On 9/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
VfU is not intended to be "AfD round two";
Oh but it is. That is one of my key points: an argument improperly neglected (for instance, if conditions mentioned in the original nomination have
been
met--which is grounds for a keep result unless there is some overriding reason to delete, such as a copyright violation). Or say an editor finds that an article has been deleted while he was otherwise occupied, and he raises the necessary undelete quorum. Or perhaps the article was deleted
by
a consensus on AfD despite the well documented fact that the subject was the President of Mauritania for six months.
Some AFU participants seem to be deliberately neglecting this function. A validly closed AfD *can* be challenged on AFU. Those who seek to deny a
VFU
undelete on the sole grounds that the closed AfD was formally valid
should
be told that their opinions will be ignored as inconsistent with deletion policy.
VfU is an appeals court, not "let's keep voting on this till we get the result we want".
I don't think that's a fair statement. You seem to be dismissing concerns about real articles being deleted.
For instance, the other day I gave an example, the list of power ballads. The Afd was validly closed, but I listed some legitimate objections. Firstly the article simply didn't fall into the class of problems that may require deletion, secondly the problems listed could easily have been remedied, thirdly the statement that the article was unmaintainable was frankly incredible.
But if I took this to VFU, then contrary to undeletion policy the appeal on grounds of the merit of the content would be denied. Even if it were not, there would be a quorum requirement of three votes plus a majority to undelete.
It just isn't worth it. Now as a sysop I can download the list, research and rewrite if I wish to do so. I can turn it into a pretty good list that would be utterly bulletproof. But I don't think any of the former maintainers of that list have any such resources. So if I decide to do something else with my time,
The maintainers of that list have been let down by Wikipedia. A perfectly good resource has been deleted for purely procedural reasons, and any possible avenue of appeal is slowly but surely being sealed tight.