From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
On 9/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
VfU is not intended to be "AfD round two";
Oh but it is. That is one of my key points: an argument improperly neglected (for instance, if conditions mentioned in the original nomination have been met--which is grounds for a keep result unless there is some overriding reason to delete, such as a copyright violation). Or say an editor finds that an article has been deleted while he was otherwise occupied, and he raises the necessary undelete quorum. Or perhaps the article was deleted by a consensus on AfD despite the well documented fact that the subject was the President of Mauritania for six months.
Some AFU participants seem to be deliberately neglecting this function. A validly closed AfD *can* be challenged on AFU. Those who seek to deny a VFU undelete on the sole grounds that the closed AfD was formally valid should be told that their opinions will be ignored as inconsistent with deletion policy.
VfU is an appeals court, not "let's keep voting on this till we get the result we want".
Jay.