Deletion of RemoteAccess

Comment: I thought the point of Wikipedia is to provide info on anything."''. Please see #Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: can you cite sources, provide links or |Verify this
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: I assume, BSchott, that you'll be spending the night putting about 700,000 Wikipedia articles through AfD because they do not meet your version of verifiability. You are being very coy with policy. For God's sake, we have '''featured articles''' on Bulbasaur and Torchic - why don't you start with those to make a 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: nicely done on the books though the websites are not acceptable by Wikiapedia's standards on Reputable and Reliable sources.  The only missing information that would satisfy  is specific page numbers in those books where RA is mentioned. I am just pointing out the standards in place so please stop the veiled attacks and stay 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:CIVIL)

Comment: Alright...that is easily done. That is not concidered a |Reliable source hence it is not acceptable to use for a source to support your position. Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)