OK, now restored. It would have been much less hassle, had you asked me what my concerns were, reassured me that you'd been able to check the sources and we'd worked out the remaining issues. I'm not that that unapproachable.--Scott Mac 22:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There'd be less hassle if you specified the criteria and made sure the article actually meets that criteria. If there's an "ignore all rules" situation then you should probably write an explanation on AN for why the rules needed to be ignored. Admins do have significant discretion, but that shouldn't be abused. Anyway, glad it's resolved now for this article. Will Beback talk 23:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I did specify the criteria - see the arbcom permission I referred to above. My deletion summary indicated I believed it to be a poorly sourced negative BLP. I see nothing problematic with what I did, and a major problem with how you responded. I know you have an objection to the arbcom ruling, but I suggest you take that up with the committee and not with me.--Scott Mac 23:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Gosh! Can I be that clueless and arrogant all the time?.....where do I sign up?
And Scott, I certainly hope you will enjoy the warm feeling of Will and Cirt shitting on your head
for months to come.....