The article has been deleted as a result of this debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fullerton. Some users suggested that the page be moved into your user space. If you would like me to do this, then just ask me and I can undelete the page in order to complete the move. You can also request to view the content at deletion review or ask one of these admins if I'm not around. --bainer (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to do so? Thanks.

Is it also possible to know why exactly you believed the article on Fullerton should have been deleted. I understand there was quite a consensus for deletion but a lot of this was due to the negative image as a result of the invasion of trolls who had nothing to do with me. I could hazard a guess that they were probably excitable pupils of Fullerton's who got word that he was on the site. When sources and evidence were produced they were ignored and overshadowed by the negative impact of the invasion. I went to quite an effort to find books which dealt with Fullerton in detail but this effort and the sources I provided seemed to be completely ignored. --Johnfullerton 01:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can now find the page at User:Johnfullerton/John Fullerton. Be advised that other people have edited this page, so if you plan on using the content elsewhere, you need to follow the obligations for users in Wikipedia:Copyrights, or alternatively use only this version which you alone contributed to.

Regarding the AfD debate, the job of the closing admin is merely to implement the decision of the community, not to judge whether it is correct or not. It seems that people didn't think that Fullerton satisfied the notability guidelines for people, or that the sources you provided were not verifiable. St Columb's website, for example, only showed winners of the Alumnus Illustrissimus up to 2003. This site showed that Fullerton is a coach, but did not verify any of the other details. I'd advise that (after waiting a few weeks) you gather all the references you can, prepare selected quotes from them, cite the sources, maybe use the citation templates, and start the article again, with the references in there from the start and with perhaps a little less glorious language. Make it sound less like a vanity page. Unfortunately there's a bias towards internet sources, and since Google turned up nothing relevant, people may have not trusted your book references. However if they're there from the start, it should be easier for you to prove that it's verifiable.

Also note that it's generally considered bad form to blank your talk page; if you want to archive the content, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. --bainer (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]