On 14/07/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
There should be a clear exception in the speedy policy on recreations that exempts anything that is an attempt to improve on an article deleted for lack of sources or non-notability.
Wholly agreed. Also, it is NOT, IMO, valid to delete an article as a recreation if it was speedied or prodded before, and I've seen admins do it.
Of course not.
If it was prodded, *the policy explicitly says* it can be unmarked for deletion, or undeleted, if anyone objects.
If it was speedied (correctly or incorrectly) it can be recreated. If what you end up with is still a deletion candidate, then it can be deleted again on its own merits, not for being a recreation...
(I went three rounds over this with someone before - speedied in error, then every recreation speedied "per earlier"...)