Stan Shebs wrote in part:
I think part of the problem is that VfD is a lightning
rod for dispute. 90% of the discussion could
have taken place on the talk page (remember talk
pages? :-) ), and as usual there's nothing to prevent
poor content from being severely modified or even
deleted. Junk article names could be redirected to
a designated page called [[Dead End]], and if nobody
ever re-edits the article into a non-redir, then a
periodic scan of "what links here" will give
candidates for quiet deletion if anyone wants to bother
then.
The idea of [[Dead End]] (or [[Wikipedia:Dead End]], to be proper)
gives me two immediate reactions:
1) This isn't as clean or professional as a straight-out deletion.
2) This is reversible by any editor, thus much more wiki.
I find it likely that much of the acrimony on VfD,
and certainly the impetus for voting over consensus,
is the inherenly unwiki nature of admin-led deletions.
Making the process more wiki won't just please some ideologues
(like Ec, or Cunc, or even myself for that matter);
it will also lower the finality, hence importance, of the vote,
leading to reduced tension and calmer tempers.
(Goodness knows I hate to look at VfD anymore.)
Some people will probably find (1) much more important than (2).
But (1) is a dime a dozen; (2) is what makes Wikipedia what it is.
-- Toby