User talk:Rsconroy

Please do not recreate deleted pages unless there is a good reason to. Johnleemk | Talk 07:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you may not be Mr. Tolliver and the article may be verifiable, encyclopedias do have standards for inclusion. Britannica and Encarta don't include just any topic they like in them. It's true WP:NOT paper, but it still has standards of notability for inclusion. Unfortunately, Mr. Tolliver doesn't meet those standards. Johnleemk | Talk 01:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a position to reconsider the result of a deletion debate among the community on AFD. Johnleemk | Talk 12:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to be resolved. I don't decide what is deleted; WP:AFD does. The article was deleted by AFD consensus; you chose to ignore it and I followed the will of the community. If you don't like it, tough. Wait till Mr. Tolliver is notable enough for inclusion, or appeal to DRV, which is unlikely to be helpful. Precedent and/or "you kept X and Y so you must keep Z too!" arguments don't work -- in the end, you might find all three being deleted. To cut to the chase, considering it was unanimously decided to delete the article, I can't and won't do anything to overturn it, because I don't have the authority to do so, and in any case, DRV is unlikely to be sympathetic. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: I do not have the power to overturn an AfD. Go to DRV or create a version of the article that doesn't sound like POVed vanity. I don't make the decisions as to what to delete; AFD does. You recreated the article using content that AFD agreed to delete; I speedied it. This is in full compliance with Wikipedia policies (see wikipedia:deletion process and WP:CSD). Stop wasting our time and get to work writing a better article about Tolliver if he deserves it. Johnleemk | Talk 04:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]