As the primary author of the
Important Criteria for Forum Changes, I see them as a useful tool to evaluate a forum proposal rather than as a mandated template that all proposals must meet. That's why the statement passed by TalkBoard says: "the TalkBoard encourages posters to fully address these criteria" rather than "any proposal must fully address these criteria".
Sometimes there's no way to know how a proposed forum will work out until we try it. The External Miles and Points Resources forum was a case in point.
Therefore I don't agree with you that this is a violation of standing procedure. I do, however, appreciate that you alone made the effort to address the criteria. Although drawing attention to supporters' failure to do all the typical homework is not a bad idea, I don't see this as a slippery slope to slapdash creation of new forums by TalkBoard. A 2/3 vote is a high hurdle all by itself.
I looked very carefully at that wording with terms like "suggested" and "encourages." I don't think I said that this constituted a violation of standing procedure. However, I did search back through several years to look for new forum proposals that were considered seriously in the absence of someone attempting to answer the questions or at least someone posting that the questions should be addressed. I personally couldn't remember any examples and I didn't find any here in TBT when I went back and looked at a few years' worth of threads suggesting that a new forum be established on FT.
However, at times since I joined FT, it's seemed to me that the questions have been used to discourage new forum proposals. Often the result is good, but it can seem off-putting.