On 14/07/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/07, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There should be a clear exception in the speedy
policy on recreations
that exempts anything that is an attempt to improve on an article
deleted for lack of sources or non-notability.
Wholly agreed. Also, it is NOT, IMO, valid to delete an article as a
recreation if it was speedied or prodded before, and I've seen admins
Of course not.
If it was prodded, *the policy explicitly says* it can be unmarked for
deletion, or undeleted, if anyone objects.
If it was speedied (correctly or incorrectly) it can be recreated. If
what you end up with is still a deletion candidate, then it can be
deleted again on its own merits, not for being a recreation...
(I went three rounds over this with someone before - speedied in
error, then every recreation speedied "per earlier"...)
- Andrew Gray