Deletion of Electrical wiring (United States)

Comment: The part where you referred to "grandiose rhetoric" when I was |citing policy was not appreciated. Original research and unreferenced are not the same thing, and it does make reference to the 2002 NEC, which certainly sounds like a reference to me. Not all references are in the form of properly formatted footnotes, even if they ultimately should be
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR)

Comment: Notability is clearly given.  Google Scholar has 6k hits on http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=50&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22electrical+wiring%22+%22united+states%22+cable&btnG=Search ''"electrical wiring" "united states" cable'' (mostly patents).  Nominator wrongly argues per .  Also, per  and , I don't the think a safety argument holds
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PROBLEM||WP:CENSOR||WP:NDA)

Comment: I fail to see why I have earned a sarcastic |personal attack. Sorry, but I can't figure out why you're voting delete, as you have explained some personal opinions but not under policy. Show me what policies are violated. What information ''would'' you have in an article on US electrical wiring
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:NPA)

Comment: lack of sources is an area of concern, but not a grounds for deletion. Also, as mentioned above, |Wikipedia is not censored
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR)

Comment: The main article is Electrical wiring.  |Wikipedia is not censored and it is absurd to suppress information on this topic on the grounds of safety.  I have added a citation to demonstrate the ease with which one can add references.  If the NYT has no qualms about discussing the subject, neither should we
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR)