From: Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com
On 9/13/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
*People continuously criticize VFD/AFD but VFU rarely ever gets any requests. To me that says there's barely any stuff that actually needs to be undeleted.
The standard for undeletion on VFU is so high that a few dedicated deletionists can block virtually all requests. And the traffic there is low enough that it's not difficult for those deletionists to do it.
And yet things are undeleted all the time.
The bar at VfU seems quite appropriate; VfU is a "court of appeal", so it deals strictly with procedural errors. It's not a "second guess the original voters" or "do-over because I lost" page; otherwise it would simply be AfD2.
Perhaps some inclusionists should flood VFU with articles and see if it helps.
WP:POINT never helps, especially when there is no evidence of a problem to begin with.
I also think that there's a case to be made for bold undeletes, disregarding any so-called consensus that might have arised on VFD/AFD, when the "consensus" is clearly wrong. In my opinion, an admin can ignore AFD "consensus" when following it would harm the encyclopedia.
Sounds like a recipe for admin abuse, or charges of the same. Do you also support admins deleting stuff even though the vote is to keep it, "when consensus is clearly wrong, and following it would harm the encyclopedia".
Jay.