`  == carbon copy participation in AFDs ==  Seems like practically every AFD I close has the following ``Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) `` It's up to you if you want to keep doing this, but it suggests you are not being very thorough in forming your opinion when you post the exact same remark every single time you participate, which reduces the weight given to your position when making a close. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventure of Exham Priory in particular, you seem to have entirely missed the same point as the nominator, that this is a short story published in an anthology and not a stand-alone book. The nominator seemed genuinely unaware of this, but it had already been mentioned at AFD before you copied in your standard remark, suggesting you did not read the other comments at all. These discussions are supposed to be just that, discussions, not voting. Further, if you choose to participate in a discussion, normally you watch that discussion to see if anything changes, instead of trying to assign that duty to someone else. Again, you are not breaking any policies per se, just thought you should be aware of the impression created by such drive-by style participation in discussions.   `