Deletion of Saint Ofelia

Comment: It was me who removed the prod. I was not on a "PROD removal binge", neither was it a "passer-by removal". I would suggest that editors review , the profile of the editor they're insulting, and the fact that the internet is not the be-all and end-all of article sourcing before they make unnecessary, unproductive snide remarks. If they are too lazy to take to AfD (which is clearly way too much trouble for some "passer-by" prodders) instead of just prodding (which is meant to be for articles that are clearly utter rubbish or clearly non-notable) then I suggest they find a more productive way to spend their time. If I consider an article needs further discussion at AfD I will continue to remove prods, something I only do when I consider it is justified, either because the article is clearly notable or I consider (as here) that it needs further discussion at AfD. It is a slightly worrying development (and also demonstrates an arrogant disregard for the consensual principles of Wikipedia) when editors are taken to task for deprodding as they are perfectly entitled to do, especially when a reason for doing so is clearly given. Thank you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD)

Comment: I came across this article by accident last week and noticed that there weren't any citations at all. An internet search only gave me |mirror images of this article. Also, there is no Saint Ofelia listed as a saint on any Vatican list, or on any other list anywhere. Most likely a hoax that should have been deleted by now. Unfortunately an editor on a "PROD removal binge" decided to remove the PROD I added last Friday. Justification given is '' if she is a genuine saint then she would have an article''. I agree with that in theory, but the editor has no idea if the subject is a genuine saint. If the editor truly feels that the article should not be deleted, then removing the PROD is justified, but to remove a PROD without knowing one way or the other is just lazy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:MIRROR)

Comment: Just makeing an observation that this article is most likely a very good |hoax. If that's true, then it would be number ten on the ist of hoaxes on Wikipedia. And someone removed the PROD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes (WP:HOAX||WP:L)