Deletion of Forward-looking statement

Comment: I'm surprised you stated "per nom." If you review Durova's nom related argument about Joan of Arc, you'll notice the page is protected. As of Dec 16th, Durova and possibly another editor has tried to Talk:Joan of Arc#Reverts|revert any further change. A review of the talk section reveals where Durova states the notes being omplete Bollocks because of functionality, yet other editors and I have found the notes to functionally work correctly. I'm sure the nom is part of Durova's continuation to "edit war." The subject of a ''forwarding-looking statement'' does not have anything to do with a style guide, but it is about historical fact. Obviously, Durova feared this might be an issue for whatever reason. Consider, Durova put up the AfD tag the same day I created it. Durova and another editor has strived to make Joan of Arc a FA, but in essence has also tried to own the article. Joan of Arc may become a FA one day, but not by ownership, reverts, or in the chase of my activity on the forward-looking statement article to put it a nonsense nom on AfD. Instead of the defensive side which I shouldn't have to do for an AfD, notice the content is still verifiable. Even if it is hard to wade through over a million search-hits. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: With limited attention to the VfD process for this page, I'm left to make further comment in the hollow. I've noticed the related  subjects and concluded the nom was an experiment of Durova's. In contrast, I've also noticed other articles that haven't been so quickly put up on AfD, like Functional shift which has barely any content. It receives only http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Functional+shift%22&btnG=Search 13k hits on google. While that is easier to wade through and find verifable content, there are many hits that express a different definition than given. There is also the Shatt language that barely has any impression, which google reports only http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=shatt+&btnG=Search 160k hits just for "shatt." Nevertheless, just "forward-looking" alone comes up with more than http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22forward-looking%22&btnG=Search 17 million hits.  &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)