From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com>
On 9/13/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
*People continuously criticize VFD/AFD but VFU
rarely ever gets any
requests. To me that says there's barely any stuff that actually needs
to be undeleted.
The standard for undeletion on VFU is so high that a few dedicated
deletionists can block virtually all requests. And the traffic there
is low enough that it's not difficult for those deletionists to do it.
And yet things are undeleted all the time.
The bar at VfU seems quite appropriate; VfU is a "court of appeal", so it
deals strictly with procedural errors. It's not a "second guess the
original voters" or "do-over because I lost" page; otherwise it would
simply
be AfD2.
Perhaps some inclusionists should flood VFU with
articles and see if it
helps.
WP:POINT never helps, especially when there is no evidence of a problem to
begin with.
I also think that there's a case to be made for
bold undeletes,
disregarding any so-called consensus that might have arised on
VFD/AFD, when the "consensus" is clearly wrong. In my opinion, an
admin can ignore AFD "consensus" when following it would harm the
encyclopedia.
Sounds like a recipe for admin abuse, or charges of the same. Do you also
support admins deleting stuff even though the vote is to keep it, "when
consensus is clearly wrong, and following it would harm the encyclopedia".
Jay.