" 

 == Request to stop deleting brief, sourced material == 

 This is the third discussion I have started re sourced material that one editor keeps deleting. It is clear that he thinks the material doesn't belong here, but it is also clear that there is no strong reason to delete it nor a consensus to delete it. 
 *12 February 2013: The material was added by . 
 *4 April 2014 (almost 14 months later): I (Lightbreather) updated the numbers from the material's source. 
 :Three hours later, the material was deleted by Gaijin42 (who is now topic-banned from gun-control related articles). 
 *5 April 2014: I restored the material  
 :and started the discussion Presenting OpenSecrets.org figures. 
 *6 April 2014: Gainjin42 deleted it again, 
 :and I restored it. 
 :Then  deleted the material  and started discussion Advocacy groups and political action committees section. 
 *7 April 2014: I restored the material. 
 :Scalhotrod deleted/replaced the material, adding a source that he liked better. 
 :I restored the material, but tweaked it to include Scal's preferred material/source. (my edit summary even said ""tweaking to compromise"") 
 *1 May 2014: Four weeks after the material was retored, Scalhotrod deleted it again - again keeping his preferred version and preferred source. (This was also the day after Gaijin42 was topic banned, and was also when Scal started removing the ""See also"" link to ""Assault weapons ban"" - which he did three times, and then changed that article's title to ""Assault weapons legislation,"" which is currently in the queue for a WP:REQMOVE back to ""Assault weapons ban."") 
 *And he removed it again today, with edit summary, ""sourced and verifiable is not relevant if the content is WP:UNDUE, you have no consensus or policy support for this redundant material."" 

 Sourced and verifiable is relevant because the material in question is one short paragraph that's helpful to the reader and not redundant. Scal, please stop deleting this brief, relevant, sourced material. It has been in the article for over a year, and there is no consensus to remove it.   "