[WikiEN-l] Why changing the deletion process is a bad idea

Tue Sep 13 16:53:46 UTC 2005

>From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com>
>
>On 9/13/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at 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.