Changes I would like to see edit
Some editors are too interested in building a reputation for themselves by massive edits in the realm of deletion that they forgot what Wikipedia is really about. We must take a step back and remember what about Wikipedia first grabbed our interests. Several of my peers stated that "the reason I use Wikipedia is because I know I can find everything on there." Also the information is trustworthy and organized (since Wikipedia can cite many sources and combine information from different pages). I was seduced by its extent of knowledge and by the simplicity of acquiring it. This knowledge on Wikipedia is what sets it apart from other encyclopedias. Therefore the concept of deleting as non-notable stands on thin ice. There are times that an article is not notable of course, but if it can be back by multiple independent sources then it is. Wikipedia works for the people and humanity itself. So before thinking about whether or not what you do benefits Wikipedia, think whether or not it benefits humanity. Well people be interested in reading this article? Is it NPOV? Is it verifiable? These are questions one should be asking, NOT well this comment on AfD help me.
This brings me to the primary issue: Article For Deletion
AfD is NOT a vote yet everyday it becomes more and more of one. I see 10 people writing non-notable with no research or backing of its claims. That is the problem with some people who vote delete. Voting keep requires research and sourcing of notability (which some people are not willing to do) while vote delete is laughably simple. Therefore people who simply write non-notable should not even be included in the discussion.
Also when the initial reason for nominating an article for deletion is disproved that article should be speedy kept unless new arguments against keeping it are brought up. The best example of this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grease Trucks (Second nomination). This article was nominated for lack of notability because of lack multiple indepedent sources. Yet when quick research is done it shows many indepedent sources.
Secondly, we need to be more newbie friendly. A new user on Wikipedia is not going to spend time citing sources (if they even know how). It is our job as long time members to add those needed citations in. We also should tell new users how to write an article instead of just deleting it.