Endorse deletion. WP:RELIST discourages relisting when more than one or two editors have contributed, and there was no indication given to him in the AFD that he should have done otherwise. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation of Salmar's version the article as of Dec 6. , which is not at all the same article as was nominated for deletion on the third. The reasons given in the AfD do not apply at all to the last version of the article. The closing admin should have seen that for himself. It would of course have helped if the change had been brought to people's attention at the time. Stifle's objections above do not apply to this situation. DGG (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and permit recreation - The closer interpreted the AfD debate correctly and was within discretion of not relisting, particularly since there was only delete positions which seemed to properly assess the matter at the time of their assessment. It's not fair to fault the AfD closer for the failure of those improving the article to indicate that in the AfD. While it may be suggested that the AfD closer look at the article before closing the AfD discussion, it should not be a requirement since we need to encourage participation in the AfD discussions and lessen a chance that the closer will inject their personal opinion in the discussion. Per DGG, the reasons given in the AfD do not apply at all to the last version of the article, so permit recreation. -- Suntag☼18:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, reopen AfD, and relist. I can't at all fault BJ for missing the improvement of the article (I don't believe it's common practice to check the history of the article when closing AfDs, and I would have done the same myself), I'm rather confused that he didn't take any action after Uncle G brought it to his attention. Of course, this could have been avoided simply by making a short comment at the AfD that the article's been improved, which would likely have netted the wanted relist. Or recreate the better version (I don't approve of this as highly, as the history would have to be restored), whichever people wanna' do. Cheers. lifebaka++21:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it's really not common practice? maybe it ought to be, just as when speedy deleting or deleting expired prods. Usually, of course, nothing will have happened that makes any difference.DGG (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation I don't see the point of relisting the AfD if the article is totally different, everything currently there is irrelevant. BJTalk08:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a difficult case. The article at time of deletion was clearly and substantially different from the version at time of nomination and at the time when every discussion participant looked at it. On the other hand, Uncle G did not take the time to note the improvements on the AfD discussion page nor did anyone else remark on them so there would have been little reason for the discussion participants to return to the page or to reevaluate their opinions. Relisting would not have solved that problem. Those who make substantial changes to a page with an active XfD tag must share in the responsibility for making others aware of the changes. Restore the article and list to AfD for a clear decision on the revised content. Rossami(talk)21:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
