On 9/14/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/14/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I'll definitely agree with that. I'm totally in favor of speedy keeps for sketchy, overly vague nominations.
There are occasions where a one-word reason for deletion is enough. For instance, take a absolutely clear-cut vanity article. You can sum up the reason for deletion in one word: "Vanity. ~~~~". You could write a sentence, or two, or three, in support of that, but it would never actually say more than the original statement.
Unless, of course, this is not what you meant by "sketch, overly vague nominations". If so, please elaborate!
I can't think of a single example where "Vanity. ~~~~" is not overly vague. I haven't objected to such nominations (that I recall) but certainly feel annoyed that the nominator cannot be bothered to be a little more specific when asking for consensus to remove an article.
"Vanity. No Google hits. ~~~~" is OK with me. "Vanity. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a home page" is OK. "Vanity. These accomplishments aren't encyclopedic enough. ~~~~" is also a valid nomination in my mind.
"Vanity. ~~~~" doesn't give enough indication of the nominator's state of mind, so doesn't seem intended to actually start a discussion about why the article was nominated. Instead, it seems an appeal to "just get this thing over with" that I find disrespectful to the newbies that frequently make the error of posting vanity articles. That's why I object to vague and uninformative nominations; we're supposed to discuss the article, and the nominator cannot be bothered to start the discussion.