[WikiEN-l] Re: VfD relisting time

Wed Apr 13 15:45:16 UTC 2005

Stephen Adair 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

Please could you tell your mailer to word-wrap your postings? Thanks.

You are misrepresenting the issue. While I don't agree that an article 
should be re-listed again and again, you are making it sound like there 
was consensus to keep the article, but apparently there wasn't.

Secondly, you seem to be thinking that you can have more say in the 
discussion by voting not just "keep", but "Strong Keep!", complete with 
capitals and an exclamation point.