Deletion of Nick Caldecott

Comment: It should be noted however, that while it is your (and any editor's) right to contest ''any'' PROD for ''any'' reason, there is a reasonable expectation that the person contesting the PROD will do ''something'' to address the concerns put forth on the proposed deletion nomination. You fail to do that rather continuously. So you leave people no choice but to take the articles to AfD. Whether that is a problem in the "clogging up teh tubes" sense or a backlog issue with sysops who must close the AfDs is not something for me to theorize on. Regardless of that angle, I have observed that you frequently don't make any efforts to rescue articles once they're on AfD, other than vote "keep" based on who-knows-what guideline or policy. I think we all |agree that your actions are well-intentioned, but sometimes they're just slightly annoying. I would be the first to thank you for rescuing an article I PRODed. But simply removing the PROD without addressing the concern for which it was added to begin with isn't something I (or any other editor) tend to appreciate. The nominator of this AfD is correct in that we might as well have a bot that goes through the dated PROD category removing tags and leaving "this entity is notable" comments without actually doing anything to improve the content itself. I am not attacking you for doing this, just questioning the methodology :) This is probably not the best place for this, but we can discuss on someone's talk page if you want. Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)