On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
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.
That suggestion shows promise, as it avoids the "piling on votes" problem as there are no votes. I like it!
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
Still have to be careful as newbies may not check the "watch pages i edit" box, and hence not have a functioning watchlist for their articles. But otherwise it seems like a good suggestion.
Peter