Wikipedia:XfD proposal

This is Flameviper...not exactly sure how to do this. Let's get to the point.

As it stands, XfD (AfD, MfD, RfD, etc) discussions require a consensus to delete. This means that if the discussion is not participated in, or that it is disagreed upon, then the article/file will be kept.

This can be good in some situations, but (and that's a big but) it allows worthless crap to stay. Let's take an example.

Example article

This article is cruft/vanity/attack/unsourced/hoax. Laura

• Delete per nom. Joe
• Delete per nom and unsourced. Mike
• Keep, can be improved. Chris (guy who wrote article)
• Keep, obviously made in good faith. Sam
• Keep, provides context. Mary
• Delete, obviously not encyclopedic material. Sue

This deletion was rejected because no consensus was reached.

Now, the above deletion discussion may not be exactly what's going on at XfD, but it's close. Even given that it's obviously crap, if no consensus is reached, then it can still wave its crappy flag over Wikipedia.

Now I propose a new system -- one that requires consensus to keep.

This implies that if there's a squabble about notability or verifiability, then there must be some reason for the squabble; usually, being nominated for AfD in the first place is pretty good evidence that it isn't good enough. After all, we don't nominate random articles for no reason.

This proposal would not affect articles that deserved to be kept (a consensus would be quickly reached on, say, FA material), but would delete stuff that deserved to be deleted.

I stress the fact that a good-faith nomination for deletion means that someone found it unencyclopedic and worthy of deletion.

Please discuss this proposal on the talk page to come up with improvements - I want to know what you think about this!

Happy deletions, ~ Flameviper 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)