On 5/5/06, Sigvat Stensholt <sigvats(a)mi.uib.no> wrote:
My personal opinion here is that an expert should be
able to provide a good
enough argument that a lay-person is convinced to make a "keep" vote.
I was once told by an admin when I inquired that it was up to the
previous voters to be persuaded to change their votes, after other
opinions had been entered. I would like to see some sort of guideline
that recognises the progression of arguments, and gives the initial
delete contributors less weight unless they find arguments to rebutt
later keep votes.
I respect your method of deciding but it does not seem to be a widely
held view on how to do the process. I have voted keep for numerous
different reasons on AfD's, where everyone else was voting "nn delete"
and the delete vote has (from my very subjective impressions of
history) always been upheld.
In general, I would also like to see some sort of guideline and
enforcement for notifying major contributors to an article in advance
of nomination, not just letting them see the banner on the page, or
notifying them after the start of the process.