Deletion of Steven F. Freeman

Comment: It is frowned upon according to , but there's nothing that says you have to acknowledge who you are in real life in order to edit Wikipedia, or that you can't edit articles on yourself so long as you adhere to the guidelines.  We might discount a person's assertion of their own notability, but I believe they are permitted (in that no administrative action can be taken) to assert their own notability without acknowledging who they are
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: I do not see evidence of passing . Information on his awards seems to be difficult to find – a http://www.mastermediaspeakers.com/stevefreeman/index.html speakers’ site has some. The awards do not seem to be the type that would fit  criterion #2. Business Source Complete returned 3 hits for him, with a total of 4 citations in that database. ABI/INFORM returned 1 hit only. Google Scholar returned 14 hits; the most highly cited has 10 citations. Most news sources that could establish  notability refer to his calls for an investigation of 2004 Presidential Election, and related book. Many others have made many similar points in the past, and the media lost interest in the topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: All the references on the page were written by Freeman, save one.  A Status Report of the House Judiciary Democratic Staff mentions his work, but being cited is normal for academics.  His http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/FreemanCV070430.pdf CV lists eight articles and two books, which is enough for tenure, but probably not enough to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Could you point us to the Sockpuppetry case?  Also, please be more |civil with your tone:  even nuts deserve their day in WikiCourt
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVILITY)