Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State National


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was  delete per WP:SNOW. Keeping this AFD open seems to be a waste of the community's time.  Jujutacular  talk 03:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

State National

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

PROD contested by article author. An interesting essay, but pure original research with some WP:FRINGE thrown in for good measure. The article title itself appears to be a concept invented by the article creator. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The author of this article has apparently coined the term “State National” and has created a Wikipedia article about this term, collecting disjointed materials from various sources, and cobbling together his/her theory. As stated in the article, with respect to the United States, the author has defined his term "State National" as applying to “the status of a man or a woman who formally rejects the federal citizenship of the United States, its benefits and disabilities and required political allegiance.” The article appears to be overwhelmingly idiosyncratic, prohibited original research – a concatenation of various ideas promoting, among other things, the author’s fringe theory that “United States’ Nationality is Effectively Genocide”. This appears to be an essay of the opinion of the author of the article. Famspear (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, but not exactly original. It appears to be taken from www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/Income_Tax.pdf (although I'll understand if it's blacklisted).   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not delete. Valid Reference. The term "State National" is taken directly from the United States Code, as evidenced in the article, and is grounded in the principles of the foundational law of the United States of America. pacgroups (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.141.87 (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)  — Pacgroups (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. This article seems to be one big advertisement for his personal point of view. In his answer to my original post the author accuses me of making broad brushed views, but failed to refute my statement regarding his incorrect timeline. It has no outside verifiable references linked and has no other research noted, outside of his own. I do not believe that such an article has a place here. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — Wolfstorm000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete, This article consists of inaccurate and misleading information cobbled together from a fringe viewpoint. It represents "original research" as that term is used in wikipedia and appears to be entirely the viewpoint of one individual.BBFlatt (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article (and the article's author) is simply wrong on his contentions about citizenship. He misinterprets the various sources he lists. It is well established law that most persons born within the geographic limits of the 50 states and various territories are United States citizens at birth. The concept that people who were born within one of the fifty states are not citizens of the United States is nonsense.Ngc6205 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — Ngc6205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. At best, an extremely minority opinion of the facts not supported by credible research; at worst, opinion, original research and argument.  Brett A. Thomas (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I disagree with user "pacgroups"' assertion that the term "state national" is "taken directly from the United States Code." It certainly is not.


 * The statute referenced by "pacgroups" (title 8 U.S. Code section 1101(a)(21)) shows the term "national," not "state national." Further, the definition for term "state national" as used in the article is nowhere near the definition of "national" as used in the source statute.


 * Here is the actual text of the statute:


 * The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.


 * --see 8 USC section 1101(a)(21), at.


 * By contrast, the definition for term "state national" as written by user "pacgroups" in the article itself is:


 * The term State National—in reference to the American union of states—is used to describe the status of a man or a woman who formally rejects the federal citizenship of the United States, its benefits and disabilities and required political allegiance.


 * The article is a "cobbling together" of the author's original research and personal viewpoints. Famspear (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete An interesting read at first. Then the impression grows that this is cobbled together. Finally, the impression is that it is a load of cobblers. Original research, essay, whatever. Words are, and have been for quite some time, my business, but I find it hard to understand exactly what this is about. I do understand that it very much smacks of the soapbox (WP:SOAPBOX). Peridon (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, and not good research at all. --Hansm77 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, and not right. Not even wrong.  Wserra (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — Wserra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete An interesting essay on a point of view that does exists out there, but that is not backed by reliable and verifiable sources. An article on the subject might well be created that meets the standard, but this is basically a synthesis based on original research. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow delete per, er, absolutely everyone.— S Marshall T/C 00:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as biased article promoting a fringe theory, and then redirect to Redemption movement where similar concepts are already discussed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The article in question is at best an eccentric view with little support in treaties, statutes, and court decisions. At worst, it is fantastic and incoherent gibberish.  Evansdb (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Notations on Delete Entries. pacgroups (talk)


 * Users/NonUsers with Extreme Prejudice. These seem to be people that want to tie this to being an article about Income Tax, i.e., See the original flagger's (Arthur Rubin) notation about an article above that has nothing to do with the content of the "State National" Wikipedia entry. Furthermore, after investigation it is noted that "Famspear", "Wserra", "Evansdb" appear to be, or are, attorneys (or tax attorneys) that frequent forums such as Quatloos (http://quatloos.com) and Sui Juris Club (http://suijurisclub.net) and ridicule people who have alternate viewpoints, right or wrong.


 * User
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Rubin
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Famspear


 * NonUsers
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wolfstorm000
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ngc6205
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evansdb


 * Notations, such as nonUserFamspear submits, "The statute referenced by "pacgroups" (title 8 U.S. Code section 1101(a)(21)) shows the term "national," not "state national." Further, the definition for term "state national" as used in the article is nowhere near the definition of "national" as used in the source statute. are ridiculous. Firstly, on its face this is an act of sophistry as there is sufficient evidence found within the United States Code and regulations (aside other references noted in the article) that show that citizens of the United States owe allegiance to the United States; secondly, the history of America sufficiently shows the progressive transition to the current state which exists. This article stands on its own without having to insert such history.


 * Accordingly, as it is overtly clear there is some agenda, if not a disinformation agenda, here, hence their comments should yield no weight whatsoever.


 * A User without an Account. Sorry, but it appears that this User Acct. has been omitted. Please clarify as User:pacgroups is new to Wikipedia.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uncle_Dick


 * Users. These people have not given any sufficient offer of proof why the article should be deleted.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alansohn -Unreliable research, you cannot be serious.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BBFlatt -The research of Vattel was by one individual, but the Supreme Court uses Vattel. Sorry, your point?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Metropolitan90 -Redemption, you have got to be joking. This is pure Constitutional law and has nothing to do with that nonsense. Pacgroups (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Notation. Evansdb fails to understand that this is a layman's environment and things must be explained accordingly; and his(?) use of the word "gibberish" is childish insofar as there have been people that have said the article is beautiful. Another attempt at sabotage, so it appears.Pacgroups (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. User Pacgroups may believe other users have an 'agenda', but the simple fact is that the article does not meet the wikipedia standards as a valid entry. As others have stated, the article reads like 'original research' and is unsupported by prior research by accepted sources.
 * From the article's discussion page User Pacgroups said
 * BEGIN QUOTE As to the comment by Ngc6205, the Fourteenth Amendment created a "dual citizenship" and before that there was none. Soul[sic] state citizenship can be evidenced via naturalization acts prior to the implementation of the amendment, e.g., “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject. Approved April 14, 1802. Section 1. Be it enacted, &c, That any alien ... may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them..." END QUOTE
 * Even ignoring the fact that Pacgroups is misinterpreting the Naturalization Law of 1802, he is still wrong. Within the Article 1 of the Constitution, it specifies the qualifications for a person to be eligible to be a Senator or Representative. One aspect of those qualifications is a time frame that a representative or senator must have been a citizen of the United States before they were eligible. Obviously, the framers believed that a citizen of one of the 13 states was a citizen of the United States, otherwise, no one would have been eligible for the first Congress under the Constitution.
 * Constitutional scholars from before the 14th amendment also had the view that citizens of one of the states were also citizens of the United States. William Rawle wrote in 1829:
 * BEGIN QUOTE OF WILLIAM RAWLE The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. - William Rawle, LL.D. A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2nd Edition, Chapter 9, pgs. 85-86. END QUOTE OF WILLIAM RAWLE
 * Justice Joseph Story agreed with that interpretation when he wrote, Every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.
 * The Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856) wrote,
 * QUOTE THE SUPREME COURT It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.
 * END QUOTE THE SUPREME COURT
 * Pacgroups may believe that he is right, but he is not. Therefore, the article should be deleted because it is in the form of original research and because it is wrong. Ngc6205 (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Notation. Just sophistry above by Ngc6205. The article evidences the INTENT by the drafters of the 14th Amendment. And, I would remind all that courts render OPINIONS. The fact is, there was no DUAL CITIZENSHIP prior to the 14th Amendment so the amendment made it so. Moreover, the naturalization act, as noted, is clear in its language "OR ANY OF THEM". According to Congress, there the state citizenship was not equal to that of the citizen of the United States variety. Those noted arguments FAIL, and have for some time now. And far as dead things go, understanding that some of you attorneys have issues with not only law but also grammar, in example some authorities that show that the current law system moves soulless things around:


 * Virginia Code § 10.1-1000. Definitions. "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association, trust, or corporation or other legal entity.


 * Virginia Code § 10.1-1400. Definitions. "Person" includes an individual, corporation, partnership, association, a governmental body, a municipal corporation or any other legal entity.


 * Virginia Code § 18.2-186.6. "Entity" includes corporations, business trusts, estates, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, associations, organizations, joint ventures, governments, governmental subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities or any other legal entity, whether for profit or not for profit. "Individual" means a natural person.


 * All those references are within the Law of Persons, which is referenced in the article that has been well documented in regard to law authorities. So, those are dead things that have no soul [sic]. And speaking of agenda, attorneys want people to be dead things so they can funnel money from them. It is thought that this is supposed to be an open format for all people, not those attempting to protect their "income".


 * No one herein has shown (proven) where the article has violated any of the criteria to be removed as a Wiki article. Pacgroups (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Notation I would ask that the article be deleted under the rules of Speedy Deletion. It has become obvious that any post in favor of deletion will not be met with an intellectual discussion, facts by a verifiable or quoted source, or anything resembling a valid point. Pacgroups will continue to use mis-interpreted Laws to make their opinions seem legal and will ridicule anyone who does not agree. There has been no proof that the article does not fall under the original research clause and has since migrated to patent nonsense due to the arguments, for want of a better word. Since the poster will not retract the article and edit it to bring it up to standards, the decision should be made for them and this topic should be closed permanently. The mere fact that it has been only one "person" and or group to advocate for the article should verify that it is an individuals idea, consisting of original research, and there fore does not meet the criteria. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowy delete quickly please to put a stop to this verbal flood. I was going to collapse this, but maybe a friendly admin will do a vote count: all but one for delete. Or an argument count, based on WP guidelines and policies such as that for verifiability, no original research, no soapboxing ("United States' Nationality is Effectively Genocide) etc: all arguments but for that of one editor for delete. Pretty please? Drmies (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Notation. Again, no one herein has shown (proven) where the article has violated any of the criteria to be removed as a Wiki article (see below). Like the other "attorneys" that are attempting to have the truth hid from the people of the world, Wolfstorm000 has not given any references where the article is specifically flawed in law. The references are all documented and there has been no evidence to refute them. An arbitrary deletion would prove as a miscarriage of justice to all that want to understand the constitutional system of law and how it operates.


 * Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):


 * Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
 * Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
 * Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
 * Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
 * Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * Redundant or otherwise useless templates
 * Categories representing overcategorization
 * Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy
 * Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.
 * Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia


 * Accordingly, Wolfstorm000 is making frivoulous broad brush statements that are unfounded and wthout merit. Pacgroups (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Original research" covers it well enough. Another relevant guideline: Too long; didn't read. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do Not Delete: This is clearly an attack by people who wish to see this information hidden from the public's viewing, I relate it, to the book burning, by the Hitler Administration. On the person who has said, the term State National is not defined as the article suggests, here is the copied uscode Title 8 (21) The term “national” means a person "owing permanent allegiance to a state." The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state. How does the above poster suggest that this in no way means what it says. A state is a Nation. A Nation is a state. My state/nation is Rhode Island. My permanent allegiance is to my state of Rhode Island. How is this misconstrued at all? Do the US Codes Titles, not really mean what they say? For, if they do, then we are all in deep doo-doo. If you don't believe that there was a Genocide trying to be committed by the United States National, just ask the Indians about a United States National Genocide. The people who want this article deleted are clearly upset with it's truthful content. As, it could be the end of their de facto laws and courts,which could be their demise of stealing off of the peoples that are railroaded by this corrupt, deceitful system that only rewards the criminals de facto and holds the de jure courts/laws hostage. Please do not delete this article, for how are the people ever to learn about the truth, and be able to be the judges for themselves, to decide what is best for them, and not a bunch of Administrative de facto Courts, who are trying to take away our Common Law Courts, with this kind of disinformational rantings. They have hidden our true Public Laws within these private laws of US Codes Titles of BS. They are trying to remove our true judicial organic U.S.Constitution and Bill of Rights. For they cannot continue to rob us, if our true laws/history are out here in Wiki land, for people to start researching more for themselves to decide. Not a bunch of greedy lawyers, who are clearly upset of knowledge getting out about State National Status's. Please keep this so people can decide for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StateNationals (talk • contribs) 06:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC) — StateNationals (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Do Not Delete. It appears that the reason most are stating that this article be deleted is "original research", but what is "original research"? If the article is referenced properly and is not merely stating personal opinion, in the opinion of those in favor of deleting, then the article should be permitted to stay and further edits allowed, based on verifiable sources and evidence. At some point in time all research is classified as "original research" but if all new or original research is suppressed then how is knowledge advanced. I get the impression that those that are wanting the article deleted are simply trying to suppress information that they personally find offensive, but being personally offended does not truly meet the Wiki guidelines for deletion. I would like to see some verifiable sources, references and evidence that contradicts the article, rather than redirection and opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QahalPastor (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC) — QahalPastor (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. I would point out to User:Pacgroups that User:Uncle Dick is hardly "A User without an Account". He has been registered as a Wikipedia user for over 4 years as can be seen from his contribution history. The fact that his user page is a redlink is irrelevant; he isn't required to create a user page to be a valid and registered user with an account. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. What is nothing short of a coordinated conspiracy to suppress factual content supported by paramount references is an embarrassment upon some of these protesters. The project called State National is founded on deeply researched material over the course of many years based on lawful principles, American history and the courts. There is no legitimate basis, based on the Wikipedia Deletion policy, for removal of this project beyond the self serving desires of some of these protestors conducting nothing short of a witch hunt. Some protestors have been identified as long-time antagonists of the project’s authors and who have demonstrated a disregard for fact. The material presented in the project is threatening to the some protestors in that they have most likely built their careers, reputations and livelihoods on misdirection, deceit, and falsehoods, and the project’s exposure of the true nature of things threatens their bidding. The project contains irrefutable references and factual content. 04:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.159.91 (talk)
 * Did you forget to sign in, Pac? Drmies (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone doubt that pacgroups and StateNationals are the same person? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodwin! Please note that pacgroups/StateNationals use more orginal "research" and personal, unfounded views to defend the article. --Hansm77 (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arthur, may I suggest that we keep to the merits of the subject and reserve your petty conspiracies and suggestive conclusions at Quatloos where they belong? This is not a chat room designed for your entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.159.91 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Notation QahalPastor may not consider it to be original research but the additional problem is that the article is simply wrong. No one who matters, either a founding father, or current legal experts would agree with the author's interpretation. The other problem is the author may believe that he has somehow "discovered" the original intent of the founding fathers, however, the courts have disagreed. In the United States, if there is a disagreement on the meaning of a law or the Constitution, the courts determine who is right. While those court decisions are called "opinions", it is those "opinions" that determine who is right as a matter of law. User "Pacgroups" has claimed that there wasn't a dual citizenship in the United States before the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court and various Constitutional experts from the time before the 14th amendment have expressly stated that a citizen by birth of one of the states was also a U.S. citizen.Ngc6205 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. As I mentioned on the introduction to the delete discussion, this article is simply an effort on the part of the author to promote his original work which is only available via sale on his web site. Clearly this is little more than self-promotional advertising through an attempt to be found on web searches. NoGutsNoGlory (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 20-Mule-Team Delete: The next Wikipedia essay on fallacious arguments I write will likely be called WP:ITSTRUEBECAUSEISAYITIS. Pacgroups and his sock/meatpuppets have obviously mistaken Wikipedia for a discussion forum on constitutional law.  For someone so interested in legal arguments, I'm surprised that he hasn't grasped that deletion discussions can only center on whether the article meets the requirements of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  It doesn't, as amply (and exhaustively) argued above.  As far as Pacgroups' repeated whingings about "miscarriages of justice" and suchlike, again, someone so interested in legal arguments should readily grasp that Wikipedia is a private website and can adopt (and implement) such rules for inclusion as it sees fit.   Ravenswing  16:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It makes no difference at all whether we agree or disagree with the argument made in this article.  The point is that it *is* an argument - it's original research/synthesis, which doesn't belong here under WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment While QahalPastor arguments may have merit in that all research starts as original research, the rules clearly prohibit it here. No outside sources that have done comparable research have been noted, no links to verifiable sources about the conclusion drawn have been offered and, as was pointed out by Pacgroups, the majority of the opinions rendered in this debate have been by attorneys, who would know if there was a case for the findings. No additions have been made to rectify this and, as was pointed out by NawlinWiki it doesnt matter if we agree or disagree, the rules are clear and nothing you have said or can say will change them. Now I suggest that this discussion be considered over and allow the moderators and admins do what they feel is right.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do Not Delete; Keep this article. This is a truthful and correct article. This is one of the ways, to honestly help educate peoples on their true laws and history. I say, let them investigate for themselves and come to their own conclusions, and not let a bunch of tax attorney's dictate how Wiki operates. The 14th Amendment usurps our Founding Father's organic U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. We were all of a different form of U.S. Citizenships originally, before the installation of the 14th Amendment. Point, if we were already a 14th Amendment U.S.Citizen, why did they need to make us a one again? Does not make sense. Taking us out of our original citizen status and bringing us into a new one. Just,the usual word trickery, that the Queen's Esquires of the B.A.R. like to do, to protect their Master's rule over the U.S. system of laws, that they created with "their" new form of government via the 14th Amendment. I say bring back the original 13th Amendment, and disallow any and all Titles of Nobilities from holding any public office seats or accepting gifts of any kinds (bribes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StateNationals (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)  — StateNationals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Would you care to express a valid policy ground upon which to retain this article?  Ravenswing  19:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is nothing more than abusing Wiki for free Internet advertising. NoGutsNoGlory (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. What is the house rule for number of votes per user ID? Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.159.91 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment In response to un-logged in user from 75.190.150.91: As the box at the top of this page notes, this isn't a vote. It's a consensus determination based upon the quality of arguments, about whether or not the page meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  As you might imagine, Wikipedia has a lot of people trying to include non-notworthy or incorrect things into it.  Rather than play arbiter about what's right, or not, the policies state that articles must be sourced such that their claims can be verified, and that those sources must be respected (so, a random web page doesn't cut it).  Other than lack of notability (e.g., writing an article about your Mom, or yourself), one of the most serious accusations that can be made against an article is that it contains original research - that the claims in it aren't supported in other, outside, verifiable sources.  Most of the people calling for deletion (including me) are doing so on the grounds that the assertions in the article aren't sourced.  Simply "voting" over and over that the article is "true" or "correct" isn't going to convince people on Wikipedia - even if the article is true, what Wikipedia cares about is verifiability.  An article that claimed the sky is blue, without citing any sources for that assertion, would be similarly ripe for removal, because it doesn't follow Wikipedia's policies.  A great first step to you or anyone else wishing to defend this article would be to find a single generally respected source that even uses the the phrase "State National" - as far as I can tell, none of the linked "sources" do so, which implies strongly to me that it is a phrase used by a very small group of people and not the sort of thing that should be included in the general encyclopedia.Brett A. Thomas (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE.. I have found this quite an interesting page/'discussion'. I lived in the States for 7 years and without meaning to, became involved in researching law while living there. Mostly because I was fighting a few court battles as a pro se defendant. I also studied, while in Los Angeles, about people and their behaviours. The two combinations, studying people and their behaviours and law, came together quite neatly when defending myself in court. Because of those experiences I became involved in researching law outside 'normal' channels. I have found that without a doubt, the legal system in America is beyond corrupt. It is immoral and evil and is nothing to do with justice. So the comments about this subject, whether or not this reference to State National should be deleted I find quite interesting. Namely because the ones requesting deletion hardly address the actual article. They attack the individual. Anyone reading the various comments can see this quite clearly. This happens when the FACTS of something cannot be disputed, or have more truth than not. So the classic alternative is done: attack the one doing the writing and make slurs about that person. And this is done when a group of individuals discover that their ivory tower is about to be demolished. I am talking about the regular folks finding out what the legal system is really all about. I myself have read the Law Of Nations and have created a website on it ( http://www.matrixfiles.com/lon.html ). Having read this and also Intervention in International Law by Ellery C Stowell (http://matrixfiles.com/int.html) I can say that these two works are more vital now in how to deal with all the fraud and corruption in the US system, as well as in the EU, than at any time in history. ALL nations of the world abide by the principles as laid out in the works referenced above. I have also come across hidden data (hidden from view but in plain sight, which is another classic tactic of war and deception) that actually makes this article quite valid. The problem with those who do not want this article to be deleted is that they do not write anything about their views like I am doing. While those that have evil intentions get their way PRECISELY because they do just that (act as a group). So while it may seem that a majority want this article to be deleted, the tone of their comments tells me that they have ulterior motives for doing so. unsigned comment added by 2.97.235.158 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we lock this now or do we have to continue being insulted by random people who, while not contributing any real substance to the discussion, also seem to be hypocritical since they denounce everyone elses arguments as being "attacks" on a person, turn around and attack the people that are trying to discuss the "facts" and have been ignored or been called names in an effort to draw away from the facts that have been brought up? No one has presented one iota of evidence that supports the case of the article not being "original research" and has been turned into a slanderfest intent, not on support of the article, but on the belittling of others. When  Ravenswing asked for the author to state one guideline that the article did follow, his question went un-answered and has yet to be answered even when an IP that looks familiarly like the authors and has been used multiple times in defense of the article has been here after the question was asked and no reply. I, for one, believe that this has gone on for far too long and there are no new "facts" or "evidence" to present. Personally, I feel that this discussion should be closed, the article should be deleted and salted, as there has been ample opportunity for the author to edit and present verifiable facts to support his article, and any account or IP that has intentionally "flamed" another contributor should be officially warned or banned. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of facts, not a place to air original research to drive up your Google hits. Sorry if I offended anyone, but I am done being offended by others. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  01:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  01:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - this article is a synthetic essay - that is, it takes information from a number of sources, and puts it together in a manner to advance a thesis that is not in any of those sources. Being an essay is not a bad thing in itself, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. There are other venues for the publication of essays; Wikipedia is not such a venue. Lady  of  Shalott  01:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.