Larry Kroon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) I created an article about Sarah Palin's pastor at Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon on Sept. 2. It was proposed for speedy deletion on Sept. 3 and immediately deleted by Keeper76 despite the "hangon" tag. And in spite of the fact that the article was well sourced form major daily newspapers. Aong the well-sources facts in the article: Kroon is the pastor of a large church. He has been interviewed in the national media. Six years ago was widely quoted in the press on the subject of the efficacyo of prayer and his daughter's need fo ra liver transplant. Several national sources recently picked up his introduciton of a controversial speaker ( David Brickner of Jews for Jesus) on a Sunday when Palin was in the congregation, Bricker said that terror attacks on Israelis are God's punishment of the Jews for failing to accept Jesus. I do not think that this was a reasonable deletion. The deletion in the face of the "hangon" tag without the courtesy of an AFD discussion is a violation of policy. Elan26 ( talk) 17:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26 reply

• You might want to review WP:COATRACK. Protonk ( talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Restore but stubify. This was an invalid WP:CSD#A7 deletion. The article contained assertions such as "Kroon drew national attention when he..." and "Kroon's profound faith in the efficacy of prayer drew wide attention...", which are assertions of notability. Yes, the article has an air of coatrack to it and was incompetently referenced, but these are not among the criteria for speedy deletion. However, the article was not sourced to the level required by WP:BLP, containing mostly references to blogs and such. If restored, it should be stubbed and AfD'ed and/or protected if it goes coatrack again.  Sandstein  17:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment I can't see the past revision, but I agree that A7 might not have been the right choice. Maybe a coatrack g10, which was where I was hinting above. I don't see a significant problem with stubbing it and restoring it (well, except the technical problem of not being able to do that in that order). I'll let keeper know this discussion is going on and see what he thinks. Protonk ( talk) 17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• The nominator is just plain wrong in his assertion that the hangon tag meant the page could not be speedily deleted; it merely is a flag to reviewing admins that there is an argument on the talk page against such deletion; it doesn't prove that the argument is valid or even close to it. Indeed, the talk page argument was in this case irrelevant. The mostrelevant claim in the article was the "drew national attention" one in the J4J section. But that section is the one that doesn't use a reliable source. So in proper editing, step one was to rip out that section. That leaves only the claim about his daughter's liver transplant - and the source there would support an article on his daughter, not him. But since it is a claim, it does merit an AFD. Absent significantly better sourcing, I doubt it will survive that AFD. GRBerry 18:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• I was in the process of adding to the article. New interviews with thes Pastor and articles about both church and pastor are soming out daily. the article on his church also had an AFD. Many of the early editors there voted to delete, but have now reversed their votes. I am not claiming that thr article was perfect. it was, at best, a work in progress. However, it did not not qualify in any way for a speedy deletion. I willimporve it, with, I hope, the help of other, more experienced editors. Elan26 ( talk) 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26 reply

sourcing, Signed articles by respected journalists posted online in the election section of reliable news sources are not the same as "blogs." Ben Harris at Jewish Telegraphic Agency and Ben Smith at Politico.com have articles up on Kroon. Calling them blogs is misleading. Political stories move fast. Signed articles at JTA online are a reliable source. So is Ben Smith. Some of the Jewish papers will have print articles when they come out late on Thursday. This is why articles on breaking stories merit AFD while they develop, not arbitrary deletion. Elan26 ( talk) 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26 reply

• I created the disambiguation article for the expression "Sarah Palin's Pastor". It was deleted within SECONDS, being called an "attack article". This happened all day yesterday, with the reasons being a string of irrelevant OR conditions with no specificity. If the following is NOT an attack article, please let me know how I can complain about two administrators, who delete postings in seconds, and have been calling me a vandal for such postings. Judge for yourselves if this is an attack article, or if there are administrators who should lose their authority to delete an article in seconds: ”Sarah Palin’s Pastor” - The expression “ Sarah Palin’s Pastor” may refer to either Ed Kalnins of Wasilla Assembly of God, or Larry Kroon (the page with sources for him was deleted, please help with sources) of Wasilla Bible Church or (other pastors referred to by expression in media). Chicago Tribune, New Jersey Times of Trenton, Larry Kroon. EricDiesel ( talk) 19:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The Sarah Palin Wikipedia Page has an incorrect link to Wasilla Assembly of God, and no one will fix it. Wasilla Assembly of God, under the name WasillaAG is editing and deleting information on itself. I am new to Wikipedia and if anyone knows how I can stop a few politically oriented administrators from calling me a vandal and accusing me of writing attack articles and coat hanger articles (like the completely neutral one above), please leave message on my talk page. EricDiesel ( talk) 19:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Restored. I restored the article as a contested speedy (similar to a contested prod). He is not notable, and qualifies for A7, but that's one admin's opinion. I have no problem being wrong, I strongly recommend an AFD (or perhaps joining it with the church's AFD) to determine by consensus whether he (and it) are notable enough for inclusion. I agree with protonk that it is likely a violation of WP:COATRACK and could be accomplished in one or two sentences in the Palin article. Someone close this DRV please and open an AFD? I'll be offline momentarily, and likely offline until Friday (36 hours from now). Keeper ǀ 76 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Update, it is now at afd, located here. Keeper ǀ 76 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The Intention Craft (single) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) The discussion, which did not achieve concensus to keep, did not address the question of notability of this song, except for the delete voters. This song, simply put, has NO notability whatsoever WP:MUS and its' page should be therefore deleted. I have mailed the deleting admin asking why it was kept, but have had no reply Spoilydoily ( talk) 16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I gave you permission to re-afd it a month ago, just do that. This is a waste of time. Looks like you never received my reply though. (Connection's been sub-par the past week) Just close this DRV and re-nom it. Wizardman 17:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Could you explain the point in re-AfD? If this page had been deleted then this exercise ( or as you call it 'waste of time') would not be necessary. I thought the whole point of the deletion review was to correct administrative mistakes. Spoilydoily ( talk) 17:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • But in the case of that AfD, there wasn't a consensus one way or the other. You even say "the discussion did not achieve consensus to keep", and you're right. That's why i closed it as no consensus. Wizardman 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure There was no consensus to delete. The debate was properly closed as not having a consensus. GRBerry 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • if you don't mind my saying so, that is a very cosy argument for never deleting anything of no notability. To quote (from Wiki) the process of concensus "These processes are NOT decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy" i.e concensus, as quoted in Wiki guidelines is NOT A VOTE. In AfD'ing the article I quoted "no relevance" under WP:MUS; No-one, other than deletes, quoted any concrete case for notability of the song, and therefore no case for retention. So, a concrete case for deletion versus NO case for retention? That's why this deletion review. The deleting admin has wrongly interpreted Wiki guidelines; this article clearly does not have a place on Wiki. Spoilydoily ( talk) 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure, both the nomination and the sole delete vote were based on a completely incorrect reading of WP:MUSIC#Songs, which in no way states that articles on non-notable songs should be deleted: they "should be merged to articles about an artist or album," which is an editorial matter, not a deletion matter. -- Stormie ( talk) 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • WP:DEL#REASON Reasons for deletion: "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". Doesn't sound like "no way states that articles on non-notable songs should be deleted:" In fact, quite the opposite. It demands that non notable articles are deleted Spoilydoily ( talk) 16:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Your sole comment upon nominating this article at AfD was " WP:MUSIC". WP:MUSIC states that non-notable songs should be redirected to an appropriate article, not deleted. End of story. -- Stormie ( talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • WP:NM establishes notability, and WP:DP advises what to do with non-notable articles. WP:NM in this case establishes that the song is non-notable, and WP:DP establishes that non-notable articles be deleted.I do feel you are merely playing with my words and taking a pedantic line here. I was hoping that this appeal would save me the trouble of re-AfD'ing but it appears not. However, looking on the bright side, it has lucidated my argument Spoilydoily ( talk) 12:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, just relist it as Wizardman suggested. Stifle ( talk) 11:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Donkpedia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) This afternoon, I created this article, about a wiki page about poker, which is the biggest of its kind with almost 2,000 articles. The article was deleted after a short time; the reasoning was "Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance". I think Donkpedia deserves its own article, simply because it is the biggest lexicon which deals with poker worldwide.
Nintendere 16:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nintendere, if you have a reliable source that explicitly states that it is the biggest of its kind, then that's certainly an indication of importance. Marasmusine ( talk) 17:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi,

That's pretty tough to prove in my opinion. As far as I know, the biggest poker lexicon before was the English language Wikipedia with a maximum of 1,000 articles I would guess. The Poker Wiki has just 700. If you google for "Poker Wiki", "Poker encyclopedia", "Poker lexicon" or something, you won't find as big pages as Donkpedia.

Nintendere 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. Our own research does not count - you need an already published reliable and independent source that 1) found it out and 2) thought it was worth publishing. GRBerry 18:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be ed where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 11:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  I followed an interwiki link from the German language Wikipedia, where every deleted article can be listed.

  Since I trusted this interwiki link i thought this would certainly be the right place for my complainment, but it doesn't seem to be.

  Feel free to deleted this section, I understand the point of view of the administrator who deleted my article.

  Nintendere 14:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  Not a big problem, just there are instructions here (and you certainly managed to follow some of them), so I was wondering why you hadn't followed them all. Endorse deletion due to lack of reliable sources. Stifle ( talk) 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Very reluctantly overturn as the article did assert notability. I will be the first to nominate it at AfD or support deletion, as it is not notable, but there is an assertion, which disqualifies it for WP:CSD.  Frank  |   talk  16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, fie on process. This wiki has fewer page views than my personal site! It stands absolutely no chance at AfD, at least in the form speedied. Userfication might be appropriate, but this unsourced article has no real place on Wikipedia. Guy ( Help!) 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as inappropriate use of speedy deletion. TotientDragooned ( talk) 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  My understanding of "indicate importance" is that the contributor must at least show rather than just tell. Otherwise any editor may circumvent A7 by merely sappending "...and it's the largest site of its kind." Marasmusine ( talk) 07:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  And, indeed, that is the case according to the policy, which reads in small part: "...an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." (Also, see Dave's response below.)  Frank  |   talk  02:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Weak overturn and list at AFD There was an indication of importance made, the only requirement to avoid A7 speedy deletion is that an assertion of importance should be made (of course this must be reasonably credible, "such and such is the ruler of the world" is an indication of a ridiculous claim that would be fine for speedy deletion), we do not require that sources be provided to avoid speedy deletion. Sending it through AFD gives the oppurtunity for more eyes on the article and to search and see if sources are available to establish notability. Having said this I searched a couple of days ago to see if I could find any coverage in reliable sources and could not find any. Still support overturning however as we should not encourage admins to circumvate the speedy criteria. Davewild ( talk) 17:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Speedy is not for deciding if the assertion is sufficient for notability. Only the community can do that. The argument "endorse deletion due to lack of reliable sources" is a total misunderstanding of speedy criteria. I'm amazed to hear it from an admin., especially one who is a stickler for following exact recommended sequence of procedure. DGG ( talk) 03:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I have noticed DGG that some of your recent contributions to DR have been, how can I put it, a little too snarky about other users. I always thought you were better then that. Concerning this deletion, I'd say that the process was defective but that an unsourced wiki with less articles then Guy's is never going to survice AFD. Therefore endorse with small application of trout to deleting admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Dhalla Mahamatra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) This page was originally posted by a troll, Courttitle, who also contributed to the AfD debate as Eliza Dolots. Once the troll's vote is removed there's a clear consensus to delete. My reasons for claiming there's a troll at work are that Eliza Dolots and Ich bin furzen both created broadly similar articles which have been deleted as vandalism and both of which refered to "Nalanda University". See also here. These fake articles follow a standard pattern:

The articles are about an influential religious scholar who lived a long time ago

There are obvious anachronisms (e.g. Dhalla Mahamatra was supposedly born in 215BC but followed the Hinayana sect which was founded around the 1st or 2nd century CE and preached at Nalanda University which was established around 450 CE)

The subject's religious beliefs are obviously inconsistent (e.g. Dhalla Mahamatra was supposedly a Buddhist who followed the Hindu practice of Bhakti)

The subject dies unpleasantly

Needless to say, zero ghits

andy ( talk) 11:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Neutral on this, the close could have gone either way. Stifle ( talk) 11:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Delete no sources provided during AFD which was relisted for a further 5 days giving more time for such sources to be found. Without sources (or even an indication of where those sources do exist) the article appears to fail the core policy of verifiability. Consensus was leaning towards deletion as well. Davewild ( talk) 13:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete I find that editors are very often hesitant to make an uninformed decision about foreign language subjects or sources. Likewise editors are hesitant to make sweeping judgments about offline sources. Combine the two and it is very likely that an AfD might see very few participants over even a 10 day period. However, the subject hits almost all the flags for a hoax--odd personal details, anachronistic elements, no sources, etc. Protonk ( talk) 17:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete More thorough review indicates that a set earmarks of hoaxdom are indeed present, and history review reveals that they were put there by the original article creator. That nobody else opined in the relist period is not sufficient reason to close as no consensus, but that it was relisted makes the close understandable. Thorough review, however, should have led to a delete outcome. GRBerry 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete -- an extremely disruptive AFD closure by Stifle which utterly failed to protect the encyclopedia against entirely unsourced suspected hoax material. John254 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I also respectfully disagree with Stifle's implicit contention that a "keep" comment by Eliza Dolots ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who had a total of nine edits at the time of the AFD closure, carried sufficient weight to support a "no consensus" AFD closure. John254 02:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• While I agree that this looks likely to be a hoax, it is most unfair to say that Stifle "utterly failed to protect the encyclopedia against entirely unsourced suspected hoax material" by closing the AfD as no consensus, when nobody in the AfD discussion actually stated that they believed the article was a hoax. -- Stormie ( talk) 06:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete. I commented that a Sanskrit poet may be difficult to research, especially in Latin alphabet searches. But reviewing the history of similar hoaxes makes this less and less credible. Expert input would have been helpful. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 05:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, I think that User:Stifle made an understandable decision given the information at the time. Now that we have the additional information at our disposa, its clear with the benefit of hindsight that the article should have been deleted. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC). reply

C9orf3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) This AfD was closed in just three hours by a non-admin with no reason given despite only two keep votes - one of which gave no reason beyond 'notable' and the other of which was by a major contributor to the page. Following discussion with the closer I still thik this was done too quickly and out of process although I do understand, but disagree, with their reasons. Source one is clearly trivial coverage while source three is verging on it (search several thousand genes and this is one that correlates) leaving only source two as non-trivial coverage and so failining "multiple non trivial coverage". I'd also suggest that all three references are closer to primary sources than secondary (although reference 2 may just pass this thrsehold) as they were written by people who actually discovered, or discovered the function of, this genes. I accept that maybe I was a bit niave in my reason given in that assuming editors would think about it more deeply, therefore if the closure is endorsed I'd ask for permission to open a new AfD with the more detailed explanation given below. I'm asking fot this permission first as I'm sure that if I just opened another AfD someone would close it as 'too soon' and we'd end up back here. "This article comes very close to meeting notability guidelines - many will think it does, although I'd argue that all the references are too close to the subject and are more like primary than secondary sources. Additionally source one is clearly trivial coverage while source three is verging on it (search several thousand genes and this is one that correlates) which leaves just source two which is not enough, IMO, to establish notability. If you feel it meets the notability guidelines I think we need to apply a little bit of WP:Common Sense when considering genes. There are somewhere in the region of 25,000 human genes - if were to have an article on each one that would be 1% of all articles, and that's not to mention non-human genes. The structure, function snd other basic properties of all the human genes and many genes for many other species (especially 'model' species) is likely to be discovered in an attempt to understand the genome and what each gene does and these will undoubtly be published in peer-reviewed journals. To me this does not make an individual gene notable as even those in the field may pay it little attention to it. Therefore I think genes should only be included when they have wider notability for example mention in the popular press or non-trivial mention in the scientific literature beyond it's form and function, e.g. it's the target for a succesful drug and there are many studies on it as a drug target. Else I think we run the danger of wikipedia becoming a directory and duplicating the many scientific databases that already hold this data. I would argue that even if the gene meets general notabilty guidelines (which I don't think it does) this gene falls in to this category and so is un-notable." To me I think a precedent needs to start to be formed on this as this is clearly different to, to use John254's example, Technicolor (physics) as I doubt we could ever end up with 25,000 or more articles on different Physics's theories. This is not an attempt to be disruptive as John254 seems to think it is but rather an attempt to discuss what, in my opinion, is an important issue for wikipedia. Dpmuk ( talk) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and reopen. Per WP:DPR#NAC, an admin can reopen this without further notice. I would do so myself, but I have had some recent negative interactions with John254 and would like someone else to deal with this. Stifle ( talk) 11:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The "recent negative interactions" to which Stifle refers is my criticism of his own disruptive AFD nomination which was itself speedily closed. John254 11:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse my closure -- this is a disruptive, anti-science AFD nomination. The nominator's claim that the gene was non-notable because he "Could find no references outside scientific literature" is directly contrary to our general notability guideline, which expressly provides that

  If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship clearly states that

  Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science...

  Thus, his argument that subjects which have received no coverage "outside [of] scientific literature" are non-notable is directly contrary to policy, which provides that significant coverage in scientific literature establishes a presumption of notability. His argument is also unsupported by practice on Wikipedia -- claims that subjects which meet the general notability guideline still aren't "notable in a wider sense" [1] are almost never levied against math, natural science, engineering, and social science articles. Though the nominator claims that "all the references are too close to the subject and are more like primary than secondary sources", studies published in peer-reviewed scientific literature are quite clearly secondary sources, as defined by Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources, since they include not only the raw experimental data sets, but also interpretation, and conclusions, which constitute "analytic or synthetic claims". "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" means just what it says -- it refers to material self-published by researchers, not research published in peer-reviewed journals. Since the nominator has obviously read the relevant policy, the fact that he has described studies published in peer-reviewed journals as primary sources strongly suggests that he has not actually read the studies cited in the article, or that he has deliberately misrepresented the policy. It is quite disruptive to bring an article to AFD on poor sourcing grounds without reading the sources, or on the basis of a gross misrepresentation of policy. Given the serious deficiencies in his AFD nomination, speedy closure is in no sense "controversial", but merely amounts to the removal of a highly inappropriate AFD listing. John254 11:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Additionally, the AFD closure should be evaluated in light of the AFD nomination presented, not the nominator's new, ad hoc arguments against articles concerning human genes (though, of course, we shouldn't decimate well-referenced, informative coverage of this subject simply because the nominator deems the articles to be unimportant, or fears that we might have too many of them). The nominator's claim that the gene was non-notable because he "Could find no references outside scientific literature" was bizarre, and fully justified speedy closure at the time it was effectuated. John254 12:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment. If you read my request you'll see that I'm not trying to overturn the decision based on my enchanced reasoning rather just pre-empting the obvious 'too soon' closure if I was to re-list with the enchanced arguement. I don't agree with your closure on procedural grounds although I'm happy to accept others may disagree as I think your arguement is a valid one (although one I can't agree with) and so consensus may be the closure was correct - hence the request to open a new AfD with a longer and better arguement if the closure decision on the first is deemed to be correct. I'm also in no way saying that we should decimate the article just because I say so - this only happens if there is consensus and for the reasons I give I think this needs to be established. If the consensus is that we should have an article on every single gene then I'm happy to accept that. No editor is bigger than the community at large hence why things are done by consensus and in this case, IMO, we don't have that. I'm also finding John254's language extremely unhelpful and verging on an attack on me - he's certainly being sarcastic and dismissive about my views as well as threatening me ('grounds for a block' on his talk page) purely because we intpret policy differently. Dpmuk ( talk) 13:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist How come no edit in the process of closure was marked with a summary that included the words "Non admin closure" or the letters "NAC"? Further, why was the AfD not marked as a "non-admin closure"? WP:NAC spells out the procedure pretty clearly. Relist as a NAC which didn't meet the conditions and was contested. Protonk ( talk) 17:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist, closure was entirely inappropriate. Corvus cornix _talk 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

After discussion on the "pro se" page, administrator Arthur Rubin, agreed that I could quote both a U.S. Supreme Court case in 2007 quoting the U.S. code and a State of WI case that is quoted in the WI annotated constitution. Without any discussion, "Steven J. Anderson" removed these quotations. Before they were removed, Mr. Rubin helped me with a typo (I had inadvertently posted my tag line) so he obviously agreed that what I had posted was O.K. What Steven J. Anderson removed included: "The U.S. Supreme Court stated in 2007 that “there is no question that a party may represent his or her own interests in federal court without the aid of counsel. See 28 U. S. C. §1654 ("In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel)” WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 127 S. Ct. 1994 (U.S. 05/21/2007)" His message was that I had a personal issue. I think that whether or not I have a personal interest is irrelevant to whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on self-representation and the U.S. code on self-representation can be quoted in an article on self-representation. Prior to my contributing to the article, what was posted was contrary to both the Supreme Court statement and the U.S. code. The article requests "This section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications." In the talk section, I provided links to three different publications of the Supreme Court ruling and a law review article about it. I also provided a link to the U.S. House of Representatives search function of the U.S. code showing the quote from the U.S. code that the Supreme Court quoted. And I provided quotes of 14 federal circuit court decisions since 2002 quoting the same portion of the U.S. code. I would also like to reinstall my quote from the Wisconsin court of appeals, which is quoted in the WI annotated constitution, and I would like to quote the Supreme Court of Canada. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 16:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding ( talk • contribs)

• I'm confused. Exactly what happened here that's a deletion review issue? lifebaka ++ 00:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• I believe the nominator may be confused about procedure here. This page is set up to appeal from the deletion of entire articles (or other pages). I believe Kay Seiverding is objecting here to the deletion of content from within an article. If that is so, the procedure is to discuss the issue on the article talkpage, or if necessary to pursue dispute resolution such as asking for a third opinion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply