Deletion of Murder on a Horse Trail

Comment: per nom. and by "per nom" I believe that, in my opinion, the nominator has given a complete enough account of why this should be deleted that I cannot add any ''additional'' policy reasons why this should be deleted, but would had they omitted one, I would have added it in my own rationale behind my bolded delete.  However since they have not, I endorse the deletion for the exact same reasons the nominator did, and I did not want to leave the nomination entirely uncommented on, since when that happens it gets relisted over and over.  For these reasons, "per nom" is a perfectly valid reason to comment on this deletion, and does not represent me being lazy, nor does it represent a "vote" where "voting" is seen as an invalid reason for a closing admin to decide how he should handle this nomination.  Rather, "per nom" is a good way to let the closing admin know that I have read the article; I have read the nominator's rationale, and I am adding myself to the people who want it deleted as a means of consensus-building which is outlined at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS)