`(Moved from User page, oops, should have been here in the first place)  I have nominated your article for deletion since it goes against WP:AUTO, WP:Vanity, WP:POV, and the whole idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for any schoolchild to make up flamboyant stories about themselves.     == Your email == You have no right to do that. Firstly, I'm not Antony, secondly, I don't even like the guy, thirdly, its all true. What right do you have to just assume something is made up? I don't go around flagging other peoples work when I feel they are either misled or ignorant on a subject. How about you take your Cambridge degree and stuff it up your arse.  Starting from your first point - I have utter right to do that. Every time you edit a page, you put your contributions under the GFDL; underneath the edit box is a note, in bold, as follows:  Please note: *If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.  The page on Antony Phillips, whether or not it was you, was non-encyclopaedic. If you're not Antony and don't like him, then why are you putting up an article that lights up his antics? Why was that the only subject of your interest at Wikipedia? Why are you defending the deletion of that page at all? The page was utterly full of positive spin; many of the links that attested to his notability were redlinks (``Full Metal Blazer``? The entire thing sounds like a spoof, for drama class at school. That is NOT worthy of inclusion in a worldwide encyclopaedia; the phrase gets one single (myspace) hit on Google. That is nowhere near famous. That's so antifamous it's pathetic), and his current notability was listed as ``famous simply for being famous``. That is utter and total bullcrap. I assumed it was made up because of the way the page attempted to portray the subject as famous; while the subject of the article is an unfamous schoolboy. Whether or not it's true isn't even relevant; the page simply isn't notable. The subject of the article is not worthy of having an encyclopedia article. If you're not Antony, you shouldn't even care.  Note also that I flagged the article for deletion - I didn't flag it for speedy deletion, I put it to the vote of the Wikipedia community. You didn't get any supporting votes; an admin then speedy deleted the article because it had no support. Wikipedia is used as a reference site by many schools, and combining that with the fact that a lot of you are bored/mischievous/etc, we get pages and pages and pages of crap. So much that guideline pages are written about it. When an article is about a student, and contains no notability other than assured notability within that school, then it is not going to survive. Whether it's me or someone else that flags it first, it's going to go.  If you believe that the article should be reinstated, then go and contest it. Cite your sources. Add references. Make it sound remotely believable rather than made up. Then it might survive nomination for deletion. Better yet, find something else and make it better, like you did with the Abbey Road article. That'd be welcome. Especially - take note! - those where you can go around flagging other peoples work when you feel they are wrong. Make it right yourself - or flag it so someone else can correct it if you're not sure. The template  is good for this if you know something's wrong with a page but aren't sure how to fix it yourself. This is an encyclopedia that strives to be correct - if something is wrong, why leave it wrong?  As for the last, I'll point you to the first paragraph in my reply . That was someone else who didn't like their article deleted; they went on an edit rampage, vandalising pages, insulting people, and generally being a pain. Thank you for at least being more restrained than that - but my achievements there are national and international, sporting and charitable and academic and active. That list far exceeds the contributions of Antony Phillips, and yet I still don't believe that's notable enough to warrant an article. Everyone does things. However there are 6 billion people in the world. There's 65 million in the UK. Why does Wikipedia have only barely over a million articles? Because it only contains people who are actually famous - not every person who's been in a drama production at school.  I suggest you have a little think about my reasoning; I'm fairly sure you'll still take this personally, but I'm one of those who assumes good faith. If you're still up in arms about an article that you claim isn't even about yourself, then to be honest I'd be quite worried about your mental health. If it was about yourself and you just wanted to be seen as being objective - then please bear in mind what this project is about, and I hope you can come around to improving it.      == Your second email == Ok, I didn't want to resort to this. You are a cock. Good day to you. #Congratulations for effectively proving that you are Antony Phillips, confirming that the page was indeed vanity and so listed correctly for deletion. #WP:NPA #Please use the  that is provided for every user, rather than resorting to emails for trivial matters. #Bite me, schoolboy. You can ``resort`` to weak insults any time you like; it's not intimidating, it's not useful. Either learn to make useful contributions, or go play in the road.   `