On 9/14/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I see as a good thing. By involving people in the discussion who are not emotionally attached to the subject being discussed we can get views from outside the field of "fanatics" (sorry for not knowing a better word here).
I always try to back up my vote with some point of policy or research (see the photographer on AFD today). More people should base their votes off facts instead of "Keep, X is good/encyclopedic/verifiable". They should address the policy point that's being addressed. I.e "What do you mean not-notable? They were the main guest on Oprah last week and they have a top 100 Amazon sales rank." instead of "Writers are notable".
You could change the deletion process a thousand times, but if people put their own feelings of what should be included in the discussion (and preferably immediately). We'd agree on stuff a lot easier.
Perhaps closing admins should simply ignore opinions of the form "nn, delete" and "Keep all schools". People will stop offering such such bland opinions if they realize that their input is being ignored and will instead offer more useful commentary.
I'm also entirely in favor of speedy closing any listing where the nomination offers no more than "nn, delete" or the equivalent. Subsequent opiners can merely be indicating their support for the nominator's argument, but at least the nominator is and ought to be obliged to make a non-facile argument for the deletion of the article.
Kelly