Thanks for your comprehensive response, Derek. You ask, What can be done? Firstly restrict the use of standard phrases when advising a poster of a deletion, except, perhaps, in very obvious cases, such as horizon not straight. They often do not address the specific issue. I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets frustrated when I contact any organization in general and then receive a response in corporate-speak standard phrases that doesn't address the issue that I raised in the first place. I see this as no different. This is especially the case when delivering news that a poster doesn't want to hear, namely that their photograph has been deleted. The use of standard phrases in communications delivering negative news should always be avoided, as they imply a lack of thought and feeling.
If standard phases are used they should be reviewed regularly to make sure that they are still appropriate. The wording should be more conciliatory. Something along the lines of "We're sorry that we've been unable to accept this photograph because of xxxxx. A couple of Admins have looked at it, and agreed, that unfortunately on this occasion it has to be deleted. However we hope you will continue to post and look forward to further contributions". More words I agree, but not quite so dismissive.
You shouldn't benchmark yourselves against other websites in this respect, you should only benchmark yourselves against the responses of members of this website (on any topic, not just deletions). The site only functions if it is giving members what they want.
Just to be clear, I think this website functions very well, but, like everything, there are always area's for improvement. In the past members suggestions for improvements have often been met with a lack of engagement, and sometimes downright rudeness and aggression. I see that this is changing now, and that those running the site are more prepared to discuss openly and constructively, even if we don't always agree.
For the record, I didn't think Dirks photograph was out of focus either. Because the decision could only have been borderline, and due to the amount of interest shown, I think it should have been retained, with, as I mentioned in an earlier post, a suitable comment added.
Thanks again, Derek, for a constructive response.