Bryan Derksen wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/16/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't suggesting you restore it I was jsuting seeing how you could mess with the rules to atchive odd results.
Er, thanks but no thanks. I know VFU is a bit weird at the moment, but that no excuse for taking an article deleted in process through AfD again, for a post-mortem rerun.
It looks like Elf Only Inn is getting this treatment. It's in its third VfD right now after having just been restored via VfU, and the nominator not only didn't provide any actual basis for deletion but also didn't even vote delete himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elf_Only_Inn_%2...
Granted, some of the previous votes could well have resulted in inconclusive results that left the consensus unclear. However, I consider this VfD to be pretty fishy in its own right.
AFAIK, the procedure for VfU is that if the request for undeletion succeeds, the article must go through AfD again. The nominator was in this case merely following due process.
As for "abstain" votes on nomination for AfD, it's because there's really no better place for people to say "I think there's something wrong with this article, what should be done?" Just putting {{cleanup}} or {{wikify}} on something won't fix it in a hurry. Putting {{afd}} on it /will/.