Tony Sidaway wrote:
What I don't like about this is that it'd most
likely end in edit
warring to move arguments in and out of different sections. A section
at the top containing a summary of arguments for and against
deletion/keep/merge, etc could be created by any wikipedian in any
AfD, and might make closing easier, but I think the straw poll format
is still pretty useful.
The "Fallacious arguments" section is probably a non-starter, as you
say. How about instead simply having each argument for or against
deletion be commented upon, and then the comments commented upon, etc.,
in the manner that's already done with votes containing arguments? When
the AfD finally closes, it'll be up to the closer to decide what weight
to give an argument based on whether it appears to have been refuted well.
Of course, this is going to result in a lot of debates over the
interpretation of the closing admin since they'll no longer be able to
point to an objective vote tally and say "the numbers are that!". But
there's already debates over "errors" as it is, whether to include or
exclude questionable votes and such, so perhaps not a huge amount would
change. Build in some sort of appeals process (AfD needs one _anyway_,
as I argued in the earlier "AfD grinds on" thread) and perhaps that will
reduce the stress of "incorrectly" deleted articles.