I am Eostrix. In case you were wondering, Eostrix is an extinct genus of owls. E. gulottai is the smallest known owl fossil.
Words of wisdomEdit
Another practice that I think would do us well to consider is that there is no obligation for us to be the most effective prosecutors that we can be once an article is already at AfD. While you should write a clear opening statement that identifies an article's shortcomings, it's important to remember that the goal of AfD is not to win. From the perspective of new page patrol, once you have decided to send an article to AfD, you've fulfilled your job: now it's the community's turn to decide whether the article should be kept or not. As a new page reviewer, you are likely going to be better at making AfD arguments than the editors who have contributed to the article, and thus will often be in a position where you could "win" the AfD even if a stronger keep argument could have been made than what was actually presented in the discussion.
Rosguill described me in some of my early AfD nominations. I acted as a prosecutor, striving to "win" the argument and in some cases this engendered needless conflict. Yes, I might have "won" some of those arguments. Yes, possibly an article with a borderline notability failure would've been kept if I were less aggressive. But in many cases it would've been harmless (yes, an argument to avoid at AfD). There are exceptions (e.g. some living person biography articles), but generally the resulting energy expenditure and possible aggravation aren't worth the benefit. Wikipedia is a community process, and after reading Rosguill's commentary I've become much more tempered at AfD, making less rebuttal comments. Sometimes less is more.