" 
 == S. Rob Sobhani page == 

 Hi Horologium you made the following changes to the S. Rob Sobhani page: 
 Redirected to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012. Does not meet notability under WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. 
 S. Rob Sobhani fits the notability rules.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    

 :I disagree, but I am not willing to fight over it; I was bold, you reverted, and we had a discussionthat is the way that the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle works. I may submit that page to Articles for Deletion, because I believe Mr. Sobhani does not meet our notability guidelines; he manifestly fails the notability guidelines for political figures, and I am not sure if he qualifies under the general notability guideline. You'll see a notice pop up on his page if I do submit him for deletion, although the article would end up redirected (just as I have done) if the consensus is that he doesn't meet our guidelines for inclusion. '   

 :(Added later) Actually, after taking a closer look, I think that he does meet the notability guidelines, as I found over 100 Google News archive hits, dozens of which help establish his notability outside of his candidacy. The article in its current form, however, is rather tragic, and articles written explicitly for candidates running for office are usually redirected to the main election articles (as has been done with the other candidate challenging the incumbent). FWIW, I take strong exception to you characterizing my edit as ""vandalism"", which is groundless and offensive. Redirection is not vandalism. '   

 == Amtrak Joe == 

 ...isn't an attack page.  Please undelete it.   
 :Oh, I have listed it at redirects for discussion.  Perhaps there you can explain why you felt the need to twice delete it   
   	  
 : It can be seen as a pejorative term, but after carefully reading through his article (I had just skimmed it before), I found a cited discussion of the use of the term, so I will restore the redirect. I don't like the propensity for editors to use redirects for partisan attacks on political figures, and I was a bit heavy-handed in removing what I read as an attack on a living person. '   
 ::(after edit conflict) Since you went and listed it at RFD after giving me six minutes to respond to your post, I won't restore it. I'll let the discussion run, and the closing admin can make a decision. I don't respond well to nonsense like this, and since you're so damn impatient, you'll have to deal with running through a process you initiated. I was perfectly willing to restore it before you went charging off on your crusade. '   
 :::""Crusade""?  ""Nonsense""?  You'd better watch your language... Just because you have a mop doesn't mean you get to ignore NPA.  And there's nothing wrong with RfD...that means that there's a consensus for the action taken   
 ::::Yes, ""crusade"" and ""nonsense"" because you couldn't bother to wait (less than 10 minutes) for my response before running to RfD and listing it. I discovered the RfD when I went to restore the redirect. I'm far from unreasonable, and after an analysis, I had decided my action wa