Tony Sidaway wrote:
The AfD was prematurely *closed*, I meant to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gazeebow_Unit_%...
And the entry on it at DRV is loaded up with dozens of "Keep deleted, AfD valid" votes. If the first AfD with its grand total of three deletes (two with explanations simply "per nom") and one keep is valid, what about the second AfD with two keeps and two deletes (one of which argues to delete solely on the basis that its undeletion was out of process)? Why isn't _that_ AfD valid? This sort of rules-lawyering is getting insane.
Is this "Gazeebow Unit" thing a good article to have on Wikipedia or not? That's ultimately the only important question here. All this digging in of heels over pointless protocol and procedure is getting in the way of trying to discuss that.