On 5/5/06, Sigvat Stensholt sigvats@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.
Peter