There's a need for VfD or something like it.

1) Some have argued that most of the actual deletions need not be and in most cases should not be actual page deletions. They can, for example, often be redirects. The thing, is that it doesn't matter whether the disposition is a very ruthless edit, making the page into a redirect, or deleting the page. The issue is that casual observer who is not a subject expert, but is a savvy Wikipedian, looks at a page and thinks "this looks like obvious garbage that probably ought to go." When a page is to be effectively deleted and you're NOT absolutely sure, there needs to be a place to take it to where a few other eyeballs can look at it, where there is a high probability of getting a few comments and where things take place in a well-defined time frame.

2) In my subjective opinion, it seems to me that some of the criticism that is ostensible being directed at the VfD process is, in reality, directed against individuals. That may be well be a misperception, but it is my perception.

3) There is such a thing as a VfD regular. VfD regulars have developed a clubby atmosphere. VfD regulars have developed a very unfortunate tendency to talk as if they were in an executive session where the author was absent when in fact the author of the article has been all but invited to the meeting. Frank and jocular expressions of disgust at repetitive situations are common. These have reached the point of being Bad Things, and I think the Dartmouth affair and its aftermath show it. So many people now enjoy piling on to anything Dartmouth that an article about the wildlife of Dart'''moor''' was recently mentioned in an "Oh, no, not another" context by someone who apparently couldn't be bothered to look up Dartmoor in Wikipedia, on the Web, in a dictionary or atlas, or anywhere else.

4) In theory, it seems to me, 95% of what's done in VfD could be done by putting a note on the talk page of, say, [[The Law of Success]] saying "I'm think this article is garbage and I'm going to make it into #REDIRECT [[Napoleon Hill]]." The problem is that people really do watch and respond to VfD postings, whereas article Talk pages on garbage articles are not being tracked and do not get the benefit of many eyes.

5) VfD does generate serious discussions. In many cases they are thoughtful discussions. The outcome is rarely predictable and the effect in many cases is beneficial.

VfD has problems. To say "It's broken" is overstating the case, and figuring out what need to be done to improve it is not trivial or obvious, since a lot of the sturm and drang is the result of genuine differences in opinion about what the content of Wikipedia ought to be.

-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/