VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about voting. Yet people still vote. People should instead bring forward arguments; some pro-keep and some pro-delete. Someone who has several arguments for or against a particular article, should mention them all. Someone who just agrees with an already-posted argument should not post because they wouldn't be adding anything.

Example: Someone nominating an article might write: == [[Dr. Norma Nated]] == === Arguments for deletion === * The article is badly written. * The article does not establish notability. === Arguments against deletion === Someone else may come across the article and think it should stay. They should be made to think about why they think it should stay, example: === Arguments against deletion === * Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as at least one book [2], which establishes her notability. Another person might discover an argument as being fallacious. They should move it to a new section: == [[Dr. Norma Nated]] == === Arguments for deletion === * The article does not establish notability. === Arguments against deletion === * Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as at least one book [2], which establishes her notability. === Fallacious arguments === * (for) The article is badly written. ** Can be improved, thus not a criterion for deletion.

Arguments why I think this system is better: * Voting merely expresses a single individual's opinion, but AfD should establish the community concensus.

* It is more wiki-like. In the same way as nobody "owns" an article, nobody should embody an argument (but people do embody an opinion and hence a vote). Everybody should be able to edit every argument, such that the valid ones remain.

* You can disagree with the sentiment to keep or to delete, but to do so, you have to explain why (by bringing forward a counter-argument).

* You can't just disagree with a valid argument; you have to expose a fallacy in it, or provide a valid counter-argument.

* AfD items no longer need to be "closed". The article can be deleted if after five days there are good arguments to delete, but if after 10 days a new argument comes along (e.g. the article has been improved and referenced in the meantime, the person has suddenly gained notability, etc.) the same discussion can be resumed (and "previously deleted as per AfD" would not work as a pro-deletion argument, thereby increasing focus on content and decreasing focus on process).

* It reduces workload because you don't need to do anything in order to show you agree.

* It reduces workload because you have to put more effort into a nomination, reducing the amount of nominations.

Discuss. :) Timwi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about voting. Yet people still vote. People should instead bring forward arguments; some pro-keep and some pro-delete. Someone who has several arguments for or against a particular article, should mention them all. Someone who just agrees with an already-posted argument should not post because they wouldn't be adding anything. Example: Someone nominating an article might write: == [[Dr. Norma Nated]] == === Arguments for deletion === * The article is badly written. * The article does not establish notability. === Arguments against deletion === Someone else may come across the article and think it should stay. They should be made to think about why they think it should stay, example: === Arguments against deletion === * Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as at least one book [2], which establishes her notability. Another person might discover an argument as being fallacious. They should move it to a new section: == [[Dr. Norma Nated]] == === Arguments for deletion === * The article does not establish notability. === Arguments against deletion === * Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as at least one book [2], which establishes her notability. === Fallacious arguments === * (for) The article is badly written. ** Can be improved, thus not a criterion for deletion. Arguments why I think this system is better: * Voting merely expresses a single individual's opinion, but AfD should establish the community concensus. * It is more wiki-like. In the same way as nobody "owns" an article, nobody should embody an argument (but people do embody an opinion and hence a vote). Everybody should be able to edit every argument, such that the valid ones remain. * You can disagree with the sentiment to keep or to delete, but to do so, you have to explain why (by bringing forward a counter- argument). * You can't just disagree with a valid argument; you have to expose a fallacy in it, or provide a valid counter-argument. * AfD items no longer need to be "closed". The article can be deleted if after five days there are good arguments to delete, but if after 10 days a new argument comes along (e.g. the article has been improved and referenced in the meantime, the person has suddenly gained notability, etc.) the same discussion can be resumed (and "previously deleted as per AfD" would not work as a pro-deletion argument, thereby increasing focus on content and decreasing focus on process). * It reduces workload because you don't need to do anything in order to show you agree. * It reduces workload because you have to put more effort into a nomination, reducing the amount of nominations. Discuss. :) Timwi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about voting. Yet people still vote. People should instead bring forward arguments; some pro-keep and some pro-delete. Someone who has several arguments for or against a particular article, should mention them all. Someone who just agrees with an already-posted argument should not post because they wouldn't be adding anything.