On 9/9/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know about frequencies, but I do agree that what you have described happens. Personally I think it would be nice if there were standards by which to request a re-vote. That is, a given voter could say, "This article has been significantly changed since it was originally nominated and the original nominating criteria may no longer apply. I'd like to re-list this and see what happens." Maybe one or two users could certify it or something like that. Of course you'd want some restrictions on it so that people don't try to "game the system" by re-listing and re-listing. Hmm. Anyway, just a passing thought.
If the article is being edited and re-edited, constantly being improved enough to get certified by another user or two, I don't see any problem at all with this type of gaming the system. In fact, I think we should strongly encourage that type of gaming the system.
Of course, regardless, it is *still* up to those writing the articles to make their notability clear when they write it. An argument from authority is useless on an anonymous encyclopedia. If the topic really is that notable, someone else will write the notable article at a later point, one would think.
Stubs expand only if they exist. This rhetorical "someone else" seldom writes fully referenced and cited articles in one fell swoop.
The problem is that article authors have an investment in what they write. VfD voters usually have no investment whatsoever; when I've called for the most basic of research of notability before voting "delete", a three second Google search, I've been accused of making personal attacks against delete voters. VfD will always remain toxic, especially to new users who aren't accustomed to it's climate, if we cannot insist that delete voters put in at least some tiny effort into research before voting.