Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (fourth nomination)

We have a perfectly good undeletion policy that sends restored speedies that may yet be deletable to AfD. In this case this was ignored in favor of an exceptionally bureaucratic three-part process: An AfD that got aborted, a deletion review that decided to abort the AfD, and reinstitute another AfD. Doesn't this strike anyone else as a little unnecessary? --Tony Sidaway 03:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. If anything, the upcoming result from this protracted situation caused by the original situation is likely to give any admin who wants to be unnecessarily quick on the trigger finger regarding alleged spam some pause.  Net benefit for all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. Standard operating procedure, to convert a bad speedy to an AfD, would take care of that much more efficiently and just as assuredly. Having a deletion review just wastes time needlessly. --Tony Sidaway 13:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you may want to talk to Danny in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's Tony's point. The point is, if a speedy is contested, then the article should be undeleted and sent to AfD. There's really no need for DRV.--Doc 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are some senses in which deletion review can be seen as an organised rump set up to obstruct the correct operation of the deletion policy, etc. It's of marginal effectiveness so it's not a problem in the long run, but it does successfully delay actions, while simultaneously seeking to deny the opportunity actually to discuss the merits of a deletion (it's apparently about deciding whether other processes were followed correctly--which in Wikipedia terms is complete nonsense).  Sometimes it does act as an appeal against deletion, but this is rare.  We're far better off asking an administrator to undelete and send a disputed speedy to AfD; deletion review should never seek to obstruct this quite straightforwards execution of the undeletion policy. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And that was done, and not only was it denied, but it was also denied by two other admins I spoke with. As I said before, you may want to talk to Danny in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have been fine with the AfD, if someone had actually closed the DRV first. AfD would perhaps have been a better option than DRV - but both at once is silly. I'm afraid I didn't read the policy (I never do), I just used common sense. You don't try the same case simmultaneously in two courts.--Doc 13:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD decides whether an item should be deleted. I've never really worked out what the deletion review people think they are doing--whatever it is, it seems to have only a tangential relationship with deciding whether or not an article should exist in the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)