Stan Shebs wrote in part:
I think part of the problem is that VfD is a lightning rod for dispute. 90% of the discussion could have taken place on the talk page (remember talk pages? :-) ), and as usual there's nothing to prevent poor content from being severely modified or even deleted. Junk article names could be redirected to a designated page called [[Dead End]], and if nobody ever re-edits the article into a non-redir, then a periodic scan of "what links here" will give candidates for quiet deletion if anyone wants to bother then.
The idea of [[Dead End]] (or [[Wikipedia:Dead End]], to be proper) gives me two immediate reactions:
1) This isn't as clean or professional as a straight-out deletion. 2) This is reversible by any editor, thus much more wiki.
I find it likely that much of the acrimony on VfD, and certainly the impetus for voting over consensus, is the inherenly unwiki nature of admin-led deletions. Making the process more wiki won't just please some ideologues (like Ec, or Cunc, or even myself for that matter); it will also lower the finality, hence importance, of the vote, leading to reduced tension and calmer tempers. (Goodness knows I hate to look at VfD anymore.)
Some people will probably find (1) much more important than (2). But (1) is a dime a dozen; (2) is what makes Wikipedia what it is.
-- Toby