Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 3

message: Although in some cases it has been, may have been, or has arguably been justified, there is a tendency to delete articles having to do with post-World War II or contemporary surrealism.  This tendency should be looked at more closely in future.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Postwar Surrealism

message: *Is there any chance VfU will move to the nice template system we have on VfD? --Improv 14:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD format for VfU? 

message: Should there be a clearer explanation along these lines:
:Use VfU is to review possible errors or mistakes in the deletion process." For example, use VfU for
:*articles that received an administrative "speedy delete" that you think do not meet the criteria and deserve a full VfD discussion;
:*completed VfD discussions where you do not understand how the administrator determined "rough consensus."
:Do not try to use VfU to discuss the merits of the case. You cannot re-run a VfD just because you have fresh points to make that you failed to make during the five-day run of the VfD, or just because you are dissatisfied with the way people voted.
(I know, it probably won't do any good...) Dpbsmith (talk) 17:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain that VfU is not a VfD re-run? 

message: I have proposed a revision restricting the exceptions clause of undeletion policy.  Please see Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy#Proposed revision to "Exceptions" clause to comment and vote.  Thanks, BanyanTree 14:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revision to undeletion policy on exceptions 

message: Are these VfU discussions archived anywhere, except the history? Just wondering... Kappa 08:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are these archived?

message: Altar Q has been sitting around on VFU since May 21 with 5 to undelete and 4 to keep deleted. Isn't a simple majority enough to undelete it now? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altar Q 

message: For purposes of review, please make available the content of the deleted entry... Kantar
oo-- dWs dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 17:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kantar 

message: It seems like the validness or otherwise of a vfd vote is reduced to a dumb counting of the original votes and if delete gets more than about 60%, saying "valid vfd". This page is pointless if we are not permitted to check whether the original voters got it right. Pcb21| Pete 8 July 2005 13:39 (UTC)
: No because it works to pick out pages that have been incorrectly deleted, including speedies.  Unfortunately that means vanity from the super-vain get listed here as they try to prove their notability.  That is usually met with the response you mention which stops them coming back. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)
: I agree.  "Valid VfD" appears to be a simple kneejerk reaction and, in the case of Digg at least, it would seem to be wrong.  This page is pointless if a substantial number of voters will not give adequate consideration to the article they are voting on (the same goes for VfD).  The policy that successful undeletions will be listed on VfD is of particular concern: the process provides double jeopardy and is inherently biased toward deletion.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 14:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this page becoming pointless?

message: It says this page is for 2. "Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted."
How is this accomplished? I can find no instruction. The XML export mentioned in the next paragraph didn't work for me; maybe I'm doing it wrong.GangofOne 08:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The page needs to be undeleted first, then can be exported, before being deleted again.  Cheers, smoddy 09:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But by a sysop, right?GangofOne 18:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. smoddy 18:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article 

message: * Leave it undeleted pending the second VfD discussion.  Tony was entirely correct to reweight or even ignore the votes made prior to the rewrite.  Long precedent establishes that as a responsibility of the closing admin.  I have great respect for Radiant but the attempt to overturn a closed decision was out-of-process.  A disputed "keep" decision should be re-visited by renominating the article for a new VfD.  Decisions closed by an admin stay closed.  Rossami (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from main page