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?
If there is no consensus then a quick re-listing is fine. Of course theres
re-listing vandalism, but that is dealt with.