This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell: AfD is delete or don't delete. Any other opinion is an afterthought

It seems at this point in time, most editors do not quite realise what an AfD discussion is. I think it stems from the notion that we are slowly forgetting what a wiki is: an open collaborative website that anyone can edit and change, where we can be bold, and fix things as we see fit. Where we have to discuss things only when we run in to disagreement. Editors on wikipedia are pretty much all-powerfull, and collaboratively make things happen, by relentlessly editing, adding information, changing how information is presented, and all kinds of other ways. This works, because if somebody messes something up, it can be easily fixed. All information is preserved in history, and we can just go back to an older revision.

In some cases, we don't want to do that. We want to completely wipe something from the face of Wikipedia, for it to be never recovered. There can be very good reasons to do so; in cases the information presented is completely worthless to wikipedia as an encyclopedia, we want it gone, removed forever. When this happens, it breaks the wiki model, it can't simply be undone by anyone, but we still want to have the ability to do that. Therefor we have come up with a model, where content should only be deleted in such a way that it isn't simply recoverable by anyone when we are sure it is the right course of action. It requires up-front discussion, rather than just doing it, and if it doesn't stick, we can discuss it after the fact.

The tool to make this action happen, is the delete tool. Because of the grave nature of using it, Wikipedia decided that not anyone should have this tool, but only those trusted by the community to not use it outside its intended purpose, because of the havoc it can cause in the hands of somebody who doesn't know what he is doing, or is malicious in using it.

Articles for deletion is a request for someone who has access to the delete tool to use it on behalf of that editor, but only after the wider community has had the chance to participate in the discussion if using the delete tool is the right way to go. Somebody with access to the delete tool then later looks at the request and the following discussion, and checks if there is in fact consensus to wipe the article and its history, making it inaccessible to the community.

In theory, that is it. The community discusses if the delete tool should be used, and if the answer is yes, somebody who has access to the delete tool uses it. But now that we're here discussing the article anyway, we might as well discuss what to do with the content if we don't want to delete it. For instance, merge it with another article. Or turn the tile of the article into a redirect to another article. Or move the article, and incorporate the content of the article in a new article to be created. These are all arguments for 'don't use the delete tool, but do x with the page and/or y with the content'. Because the person checking if he should use the delete tool is going over the discussion anyway, summorising it, and looking if there is any consensus on the content is no bother, so why don't do that too.

So technically, there are two parts to the story. First, the check of the community wants to use the delete tool on the article. If no, then check if there was any consensus on what to do with the content. This doesn't require access to the delete tool, but while he's there anyway, he's as good as anybody to close the discussion that we weren't there to have, but had anyway, and wikipedia shouldn't be so pedantic - and fortunately isn't - to say 'you had this discussion in the wrong place, go do it again'.

Now why this long story? To point out, that there are in fact only two outcomes of an AfD. There is consensus to use the delete tool on this article, or there isn't consensus to use the delete tool on this article. That means there are only two opinions that can be voiced on a deletion discussion: we should use the delete tool on this article, or we shouldn't use it (and, obviously, why we should or shouldn't do that). That also means that any opinion other than delete, is automatically keep (which is the equivalent of don't use the delete tool). merge means: don't use the delete tool. And by the way, I think we should merge the content of this article to some other article. redirect means: don't use the delete tool. And by the way, the best use we can make of this article title is to use it to redirect to another article. The second meaning is always an aside to keep.

Opinions along the lines of merge or delete are not quite sensible. It translate to "use the delete tool or don't". "merge, but only in a selective way" makes slightly more sense. It means "keep, and after that, we should merge the article, and be selective about it". Please realise this when you make such a statement. On AfD the question is asked "do we want to use the delete tool, or don't we want to use the delete tool". Using it as a forum for "what should we do with the article from an editorial point of view" is not what it is for; deletion is quite something different from any other editorial action.