Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete, created by an editor evading a block. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control[edit]

Should not have been userfied after WP:SNOW close of an AfD. This is an essay of personal opinion, and has not place here, per WP:OR and WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deleting a userfied version is necessary right now this soon after an AFD; it certainly falls within admin discretion to userfy it. If there is no progress in trying to create an article, it can be deleted down the road. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; This isn't an appropriate MfD as the draft is still active. Give the editor a chance to work on their draft, this is bordering on WP:BITE per "Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out." Granted, it's not an article, it's a draft, which probably makes this worse. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the current nature of the draft would never be acceptable in article space, there's no deadline here on a userfied draft. If the creator can in fact create an encyclopedia worthy article, the place to do it...and where he has been encouraged to do it...is a draft. I concur with Floquenbeam and Mr rnddude. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. There's been a lot of tendentiousness around this attempt at an article, but squashing the userspace draft before there's been a chance to improve it feels like overkill. The author so far appears to have a bad case of WP:IDHT, but this still feels like piling on. --Finngall ^talk 20:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since we're on the topic, explain why exactly the draft "would never be acceptable in article space" and how you would change it to make it encyclopedia worthy, and why you didn't make those changes rather than deleting the article, Hammersoft.Polythesis (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about whether or not to retain the draft. It is not the place to discuss what actions I did or did not take. As for why it would never be acceptable, I've pointed you towards Wikipedia:Your first article. I recommend you spend time reading that. If you have non-hyperbolic, non-WP:NPA violating questions, you are quite welcome to post them on my talk page or place a {{Help me}} on your own talk page, which will likely result in a faster response from experienced Wikipedians. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was userified, not by the author of the article, but by the administrator who deleted the article: Iridescent. Polythesis (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a great place to discuss it, since it was not enough to delete my article, but someone wanted to push the issue further by attempting to delete the userified article that was created by the admin who approved the deletion. Since you took so much time to write all of that, maybe you could just answer the question instead, Hammersoft. But then again, if you wanted to help, you probably would have a long time ago instead of just trying to destroy my work without just cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talk • contribs)

Would you please sign your comments? You are routinely not signing them. You can do so by clicking the third button from the left in the editing window, or by adding "~~~~" to the end of your talk page comments. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's within admin discretion to userfy, and offering to do so was part of the AfD close. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given some time (broadly construed), if the draft still doesn't merit inclusion in mainspace, then sure, delete (per WP:NOTWEBHOST). But, give the author some time to bring it to that point. Although, given that the author states they are a "political writer and activist", I would suspect they might have better means to publish what they say is such an important and life-saving piece of work, but if hethey can make his article meet the project's standard for inclusion, I say let ~~him~~them. PGWG (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't use gender-specific pronouns when I don't know the gender of the author, apologies if I got that wrong. PGWG (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The editor in question has been indef blocked. They won't be able to modify/improve this article, so the above arguments are now pointless. --Tarage (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also it was just deleted anyway so... --Tarage (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out this a block evading editor, who has been disrupting this topic area for a while, and is currently blocked for legal threats. So WP:BITE and WP:USERFY go out the window. Enough disruption, I've deleted this page, and *might* undelete if the legal threat is ever retracted. But after seeing the tendentiousness of the editor as an IP, I kind of doubt that too. I thought I'd downloaded a script to help close MFD, but I guess I didn't, so give me a couple of minutes to read the instructions again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.