On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/6/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter(a)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