From: Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
On 9/16/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
VfU is not
intended to be "AfD round two";
Oh but it is. That is one of my key points: an argument improperly
neglected
(for instance, if conditions mentioned in the original nomination have been
met--which is grounds for a keep result unless there is some overriding
reason to delete, such as a copyright violation). Or say an editor finds
that an article has been deleted while he was otherwise occupied, and he
raises the necessary undelete quorum. Or perhaps the article was deleted by
a consensus on AfD despite the well documented fact that the subject was
the
President of Mauritania for six months.
Some AFU participants seem to be deliberately neglecting this function. A
validly closed AfD *can* be challenged on AFU. Those who seek to deny a VFU
undelete on the sole grounds that the closed AfD was formally valid should
be told that their opinions will be ignored as inconsistent with deletion
policy.
VfU is an appeals court, not "let's keep voting on this till we get the
result we want".
Jay.