Greek love   Im looking for a way to extricate myself honorably from this mess Im leaving a note here because you closed this AfD where I made a commitment to do as you instructed in the closing statement There are two editors who have long sought to delete or eviscerate the article one of whom has used a series of user names unacknowledged on his current user page but available  so at first glance it may appear on the talk page there are more than two editors in the suppress camp I complain here about their coordination Other editors including      and  have periodically weighed in to indicate that the article was developing in the ways outlined at the AfD based on RS recommended there and others discovered since then Since Im a rather obsessive provider of citations Ive never had these kinds of problems in other articles The same objections that were dismissed at the AfD recur endlessly and really its been like living in Groundhog Day and I simply cant do it any longer I havent changed my position on the validity of the article but Ive been accused on various talk pages and never the appropriate notice boards of edit warring ownership disruption and even pedophilia by implication all for trying to carry out what the community decided Im done I need to limit my time on Wikipedia at present and wish for that time to be spent pleasantly and productively When Ive made a commitment though it grieves me not to keep it Im not asking you to do anything Im just explaining why I cant keep my word as given at the AfD     Wow that is a messCertainly no hard feelings  on my end it is clear you endeavored in good faith to improve the article I have found that knowing when to walk away is an essential skill not only here but in the real world Sometimes your presence despite your best intentions is harmful rather than helpful and sometimes a dispute just isnt worth it anymore Best of luck in your future endeavors here      Mailchimp   Im not that bothered but I think that the Mailchimp speedy deletion was a mistake  It did cite that it was one of the more important email marketing programs so it was stating the importance  something that was supposed to be the original problem      The criteria specifies a credible claim of significance Wordpress pages are not reliable sources However I would certainly not object to it being restored as a redirect as it was for several momnths before today    Talkback      Just a hunch  Call it my intuition but Im guessing that his username is a direct challenge to patrolling admin that you guys wont block him based on the username itself but his contribution speaks volume of his nonsense louder my other hunch being hes a returning editor than his username does Just my  cents Cheers    There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be a returning editor the username is not a blatant violation of the policy  If you have any evidence of socking file at WPSPI      Recreation of article Shay Carl   I would like to request that the article Shay Carl be recreated see the deleted TalkShay Carl for my reasons note TalkShay Carl was delete because of A not notibility     Well there was