Oh, and thanks to people claiming the "DRV doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted" (despite the fact that several people were strongly in favour)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/...
Damnit.
There ought to be a way to review inappropriate MfD closures like this.
On 9/11/06, dmehkeri@swi.com dmehkeri@swi.com wrote:
Oh, and thanks to people claiming the "DRV doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted" (despite the fact that several people were strongly in favour)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/...
Damnit.
There ought to be a way to review inappropriate MfD closures like this.
Apart from DRV, right? The problem from what I see based on this discussion is not with the fact that the DRV page actually exists, but how it's being used. Ironically enough, the DRV page is supposed to be the place to discuss inappropriate closures. The problem with DRV isn't that it exists, but perhaps it is how it's being used and maybe (according to some) how it's named. I sure hope it's not how it's named, because that would once again smack of political correctness (it's already been renamed from VFU). IMHO, it's not the name that's the main problem but how it's being used.