James Scott Richardson article
I did read your response, and am in some agreement that the article might not be quite notable enough for Wikipedia. I am still, however, very much on the fence on the issue. In order to get an outside, "neutral" view of this, you should post a Request for Comment at WP:RFC. The community will then weigh in on the situation. If you go that route, I strongly, strongly, strongly recommend that in your initial comment you come out and confess immediately that you have been trying to do all that you can to delete this article, including trying to use speedy deletion criteria when you know that they were inappropriate. You have to say "I tried abusing the system to get this article deleted, I know it was wrong, and I apologize." If you do not, any editor could say you're a "troll" and point out your abuses of the speedy deletion process, and after that no one will listen to you. Also, if you're going to stand a chance, use reasoned arguments, and do not accuse the opposition of having biases. All such accusations will do is make you seem off-kilter. Simply explain rationally and thoroughly why James Scott Richardson is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.
Finally, do understand that I'm explaining all of this to you not because I'm a stalwart ally of yours (though obviously I have nothing against you either), but because I think every editor should have equal access to the Wikipedia processes. It's not fair if your arguments about a particular argument are hampered simply because you aren't familiar with the Wikipedia Request for Comments system. I will monitor and probably make some comment on any RfC you put forward, but please do not be disappointed once the process starts that I am not going to be loudly arguing on your side. I will remind readers to pay attention to the merits of your arguments and not your previous actions, but I do of course reserve the right to hold any opinion I wish about whether this article should be deleted, and to change that point of view. Please let me know if you have any procedural questions. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 04:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I rolled back this edit as it deleted several sections including all the references. Presumably you didn't want to do that, but I couldn't figure out what you wanted to do. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)