I was typing the response when you visited the talk page It is the nature of Wikipedia to make a choose between users and so my comments were eliminated What I basically stated is that the material probably should NOT be in the article the reasoning against her nomination needs to presented in a balanced NPOV manner Having its own section with each point starred is not NPOV Also there must an attempt to provide the reasons FOR her nomination also that was not present Also the comments were conclusionary they did not provide the reasoning For example the LA Times quote stated that she is bad Whoa That s an elementary school argument There was no explanation on WHY JRB is so bad that is NOT a NPOV presentation So go ahead provide the arguments and thinking against JRB but provide the arguments and thinking FOR JRB also And conclusionary statments just don t cut it Your contracts professor wants to hear why the contract is void he she does not just want to hear you say the contract is void Best