You mean you're going to continue deleting good notable articles because they just don't give you that FEELIN' of notability when you look at 'em?
Well let's not be quite so harsh on Erica. I checked her contribs and logs shortly after receiving that (IMHO somewhat worrying) message and found that practically all of her (bad assumption?) contributions are deleting articles. I have no doubt that looking up articles _would_ dramatically increase the workload in this case.
But just as interesting is the fact that I could not find a single example -- not one -- that was not more appropriately filed under some _other_ SD criterion. Many were simply garbage, which falls under vandalism. Many others were obvious vanity. A good percentage of the later actively stated their non-notability, like one article written about a high-school volleyball player who the author apparently has a crush on. None of these worried me in the slightest.
What is worrying people in this thread is that the same criterion is _also_ being used to delete articles that seem perfectly valid. So I propose that A7 be changed to make this distinction clear: questions of non-notability are not subject to SD, whereas articles that _state their non-notability_ are. I really don't think this change would harm anyone.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Add the Windows Live Messenger NHL Stats Agent to your buddy list and get your stats fix instantly http://sports.sympatico.msn.ca/NHL/NHL_Stats_Agent