MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It's this notion of a "somewhat final decision" that's the problem. Two editors, at least one of whom must be a sysop for technical reasns, should be all that's needed for undeletion.
Ec
Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case where there's nothing wrong with their judgement? You'd need a bloody good reasons for an undeletion. If you have evidence they were misinformed, undelete. If you know they didn't provide a valid rationale, undelete. If they provided a now outdated rationale, undelete. But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and checked by the community before they happen.
"Overthrow" seems like a drastic term in these circumstances. Why should a desire to undelete something be seen as an attack on their judgement? Things have gone too far when the deleters take a simple request to undelete as a serious criticism of their personal judgement. It's as though they are insisting that they are never wrong.
Most of the deleted articles are unlikely to even have one person who wants to undelete, ever. If even one person who knows anything about the subject was not available at the time of the deletion he should be able to have a meaningful influence on the decision. Even in your terms that alone should satisfy the "misinformed" criterion. Undeletions should be about content, not process or rationale.
Your last comment is illogical. How can a community proof and check a deleted article unless it is first undeleted? Yes, one person can ask an admin for a copy of a deleted article, but that one person is not a community.
What makes you say only two people are needed?
Because I don't think that one would be enough, particularly if that one is not an admin. Having a second person agree gives a little room for a reality check.
Ec