== Deletion of  == 

 David, 

 I realize from many of your strong and somewhat emotional comments during the whole sordid affair surrounding Essjay that you are probably acting as much if not more from a personal connection to Essjay as you are from an impartial point of view.  The reason I argued strongly against the deletion of this article is because it serves as the best record of this dispute and the efforts of the contributors here to deal with the situation.  Deleting this page leaves only the other fractured, uglier discussions—such as —as the record for anyone or any journalists coming here in the wake of the news coverage.  Especially since the New York Times article, which gave favorable coverage to Wikipedia based on the community's efforts to address this issue, I think it is for the benefit of the project to leave this record in place. 

 By deleting this record of the discussion and the struggle of the community to come to terms with the deception of one of our best members, you have done the entire project a great disservice.  It is a rather weak justification in the face of the good that the orderly discussion at this page did to hang the deletion on the reason that it is uncertified RfC.  Not only did the page not even begin life as an RfC, but it could have been certified as a procedural issue without problem if this was simply a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's.  If ever there was a time to ignore all rules, then this was one of those moments—this article absolutely should not have been deleted on a technicality. 

 I am respectfully asking you to step aside from your personal connection in this case and for the greater good of the project, undelete this important historical record so that everyone, both inside and outside the project, can see how we work and understand that this project has the resiliancy to face and overcome failings of even our most respected members. 

 —