Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Furies: Erinyes

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 . Original research. Phenomenal work, yes, but not encyclopedic. I will happily send a copy to the author at his request. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Furies: Erinyes

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been in mainspace twice and was moved to user space following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furies: Erinyes. and again following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furies: Erinyes. But the time has now come to say gently but firmly to Richard Fuster that Wikipedia has no place for his monograph. It is a ridiculously large lump of original research.

Richard, please move it elsewhere. Wikiversity:Wikiversity has been suggested but your own web site is probably the safest place. (I hope you will come to the meetup on June 11 so that we can assure you that there is nothing personal about this.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the author of the page nominated for deletion, I'm happy to keep and complete the article page without further admin changes, for it to be reviewed at sometime in the future, after it has been finished. My completion decision is determined by the information available and not by length of time it takes to find and display such material. However, I would like to use the title 'Furies: Erinyes (Eumenides)' at this point in the discussion because of the page's developed appearance, since first the page was appraised. If this page is to become a featured article page the proposed new title might suit better its composition, at this point in the process of its development FUSTER1965 (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, with reference to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. It doesn't look terribly offensive, and was about to type "keep as within reasonable leeway", until I checked to find that User:FUSTER1965 has made 1425 of his total 1652 edits to this draft page. It is too much of a problem, specifically with being a combination of two not-OK things, a fork of Erinyes and WP:OR. Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and User:FUSTER1965 should not be working so heavily on forked content within Wikipedia. Please take it offsite, per Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SmokeyJoe's research Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't even tell what this monograph is supposed to be about. It appears to be a parking lot for an unrelated hodge-podge of research. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2017 (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.