On 9/13/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
VFD is part of Wikipedia, why would it work the opposite way from the rest of the wiki. It takes me just a minute to substantiate proof something is worth of an entry. Yes, it takes some time, but it's time well spent. That's exactly why AFD needs knowledgeable people.
And if you come up with proof of relevance, your work will still be for naught if the howling boeotians refuse to recant their delete votes. And any admin who dares disregard a numerical consensus to delete when the minority side has a valid argument to keep will be wikisued: ask Tony Sidaway about this.
There's a lot of editors and admins who've given up on VFD/AFD precisely because of the problems Stan is talking about, including many of Wikipedia's best editors.
Kelly
I've closed a VFD on a number of articles where the concensus was to delete. The article was rewritten right before the end and didn't resemble the original nominated article even remotely, so I based my closure on the votes made after the rewrite. I've yet to hear someone complain.
Such cases are exactly the ones you can bring to VFU. Drop the evidence on the doormat and see what happens. If anyone wants to call the AFD valid if reliable evidence is presented, I'd be happy to turn controversial.
(Sorry for the duplicate Kelly, I sent the message just to you instead of the full list.)