I work slowly. I do not edit my field of expertise because I'm a little too close to that and it probably will lead to POV editing and needless conflicts. To avoid this, I edit my side-interests primarily. These change regularly, but right now are West African history, turn of century baseball, and places I am visiting soon. Took a break from January 2015 until June 2016, I highly recommend it.
Since I weigh in on a few AFDs, figured I'd be transparent about my process:
I do not read the article in question at first. I think this is sometimes misleading and so I start with a search in a couple of databases to see if I can ascertain notability through the results in them.
Then I read the discussion and follow any evidence presented for keep or delete.
Then I read the article and see where that leads me.
Finally, I give it a best vote. My general rule of thumb is: A topic is probably not notable if a Wikipedia stub/start class article would be the best thing written about the topic. This is a helpful way to figure out if a topic has significant coverage or simply marginal mentions. This is imperfect and I won't be 100% faithful to it, but it is just sorta my guide.
I follow all AfD discussions in which I participate and will gladly change votes based on other ideas later presented. I might even flip back.
Philosophically, I'm probably closer to an inclusionist, but who thinks that depth is preferable to breadth while including as much information as possible. So, that leads me towards being a deletionist, I guess. I couldn't care less about these.
and Takembeng
which became part of the Mali Federation