Tony Sidaway wrote:
What I don't like about this is that it'd most likely end in edit warring to move arguments in and out of different sections. A section at the top containing a summary of arguments for and against deletion/keep/merge, etc could be created by any wikipedian in any AfD, and might make closing easier, but I think the straw poll format is still pretty useful.
The "Fallacious arguments" section is probably a non-starter, as you say. How about instead simply having each argument for or against deletion be commented upon, and then the comments commented upon, etc., in the manner that's already done with votes containing arguments? When the AfD finally closes, it'll be up to the closer to decide what weight to give an argument based on whether it appears to have been refuted well.
Of course, this is going to result in a lot of debates over the interpretation of the closing admin since they'll no longer be able to point to an objective vote tally and say "the numbers are that!". But there's already debates over "errors" as it is, whether to include or exclude questionable votes and such, so perhaps not a huge amount would change. Build in some sort of appeals process (AfD needs one _anyway_, as I argued in the earlier "AfD grinds on" thread) and perhaps that will reduce the stress of "incorrectly" deleted articles.