Bryan Derksen (bryan.derksen@shaw.ca) [050909 02:05]:
Just the other day I stumbled across an article on VfD for which the entire text of the justification given for its nomination was: "NN, D" I'm hardly a newbie, but even for me it took a few minutes to figure out that "NN" meant non-notable. I checked the edit history of the editor who'd made the nomination and found about a dozen identical VfDs for other articles made at the same time. I voted "keep" on every last one of them because in my opinion the _nominations themselves_ were not adequate.
Don't you know it's a terrible personal attack to question the motives of a deletion nomination? And calling a bogus nomination "bogus" just because it has no connection whatsoever with the actual deletion policy is apparently grievously insulting too.
I didn't even bother reading the actual articles and for all I know based on the justification given the nominator hadn't read them either - he apparently didn't even bother to take the time to type out whole words. Got accused of violating WP:POINT, of course, but I completely stand by my actions.
Tony Sidaway gets accused of that as well for closing nominations per the letter of the policy rather than the conventions of some VFD regulars.
How about a policy whereby VfDs that don't adequately explain why the nominator made it can be summarily deleted? If someone proposes deleting an article they should at least show that they put effort into determining whether deletion was warranted.
The VFD regulars have bitterly resisted each and any attempts in this direction, because then they might have to think or something before nominating.
- d.