[WikiEN-l] More quotes from AfD

[Steve Bennett]

On 6/19/06, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> For the record, I think the Articles for Deletion process gets things right
> most of the time. In my view, there are much fewer problems than with speedy
> deletion. I am yet to be convinced that there is a better process than
> articles for deletion.

It could be greatly improved, by making it more process-driven and
focused on fact-finding, rather than "so, who reckons we oughta delete
this one??" I've suggested this before, but anyway:

1. Nominator specifies a single criterion which the article fails
under, and which is listed as being a reason for deletion (eg,
copyvio, non-notability of subject, or article irremediably fails to
establish notabilyt etc)
2. "Voters" express support or disagreement for this nomination: "Yes,
it does fail under that criteria" or "No, it doesn't, and here's why"
would be the only acceptable responses.
3. Closer (admin) verifies that the original nomination is valid (the
criterion is indeed a reason for deletion), then checks the votes. If
there are any strong, valid "keeps", it's kept. Otherwise, either
merged or deleted, depending on the original nomination.

Steve