On 5/6/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
I was once told by an admin when I inquired that it was up to the previous voters to be persuaded to change their votes, after other opinions had been entered. I would like to see some sort of guideline that recognises the progression of arguments, and gives the initial delete contributors less weight unless they find arguments to rebutt later keep votes.
Why not just scrap the concept of a vote entirely, and make it more like a judge deciding a case. Everyone can present an argument. If there is a *compelling* argument for keeping, it's kept. If there's a reasonable case for deletion, it's deleted.
So there would be no point adding "delete as per nom". You would only add a comment if it was different to what other people had said, or you wanted to point to sources that proved notability or whatever. As it is, lots of people can vote without having any idea of actual notability guidelines or whatever.
In general, I would also like to see some sort of guideline and enforcement for notifying major contributors to an article in advance of nomination, not just letting them see the banner on the page, or notifying them after the start of the process.
Could be done automatically if everyone who has the article in their watchlist received a talk page message. Having the article in your watchlist demonstrates you care a bit - but doesn't confirm that you will actually see the AfD.
Steve