Keith Old wrote:
While I appreciate people are trying to think of ways to improve a process which they perceive as deficient, that process and others not involving a central process open to all users would end up working very inconsistently with articles being deleted or not at the whim of which admin comes through at a particular time.
Let us look at an article about a person who is notable in Australia but not elsewhere (for example) which is in a poor state. Editor A comes and tags the article for deletion. Editor B comes through and deletes it. Neither editor is aware of the significance of the person in Australia and the article is deleted.
If it was listed on articles for deletion, an editor or editors from Australia could argue for its retention and improve it meaning we have a better article.
This is why I proposed splitting AFD by topic, and look where it got me... I remember when I was more active on the [[WP:AWNB]] that we had a section for "Australia-related articles on VFD", sometimes we would keep these out of mainstream VFD, and we would perform the same courtesy to other regional noticeboards.
Apart from that, I suspect that the undeletion process will become unclogged with many accusations of editors/admins acting in bad faith.
I concur. Under PWDS there is too much room to assume bad faith. Either people will leave over month-long revert wars, or we will have groups of sysops running around protecting and unprotecting articles in order to try and "keep" or "delete" them.
I will flag now that I will not vote for any proposal unless that I am pretty sure that it will improve the system. I will not vote for any proposal which removes the deletion process from the scrutiny of ordinary users.
Indeed. Hence my scepticism of the "hidden semi-deleted pages" option.
Damn, I feel like being bold and just going and...