[WikiEN-l] VfD relisting time

Wed Apr 13 07:28:26 UTC 2005

I certainly don't approve of it. Unless it's blatantly obvious no
concensus was reached. There should be at least a month between VFD
nominations. Of course, this requires the nominator to know it was
nominated before. Did they vote in the previous vote? And was the
result noted on the talk page?

--Mgm

On 4/13/05, Stephen Adair <SWAdair at computermail.net> wrote:
> There is currently a vote underway on an article that was relisted for VfD seventeen hours after the previous VfD was closed.  I originally voted to delete based on content (IMO, non-notable autobiography), but now I am voting to keep based on principle.  It just survived VfD.  Community consensus means nothing if we only abide by it when things go our way.
> 
> This article was returned to VfD less than a day after the previous VfD was closed.  IMO, that showed a disregard for process, for community consensus, for the opinions of those who had voted, and for the spirit (if not the letter) of Wikipedia policy.
> 
> By relisting the article almost immediately, the lister unilaterally forced an extension of the VfD debate, without regard to anyone else's wishes and without regard to standard practice (no consensus to delete means keep).  If someone thinks an article should be deleted, they should not simply keep relisting it until it eventually gets deleted.  I had originally voted to delete, but I draw the line at this.
> 
> Obviously, by drawing attention to this, I'm hoping that enough people get involved and vote to keep on principle.  How long do we respect a VfD result?  Until the next time we log in?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Grant_Neufeld
> 
> Thank you,
> Stephen W. Adair
> (User:SWAdair)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>