Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control

That allegation is totally false. All research that either has been or will be presented in this article has been conducted by hundreds of respectable academics and historians over thousands of years. There is a relationship between arms control and tyranny. That is not a point of view, it is a fact, although there are many points of view on the subject. All of those points of view will be discussed in a balanced and neutral way. The article is about a relationship between two policies that have been debated and discussed throughout human history. This is not an essay, which according to Wikipedia is defined as, "a piece of writing that gives the author's own argument". This encyclopedic article will contain the arguments of philosophers, politicians, military leaders and human rights activists throughout history and their views on the relationship between arms control and tyranny. What the article will be is all conjecture at this point though. In its current form, I am baffled as to why anyone would consider this article to be either original or not neutral.RickinBaltimore apparently wants to delete the article, not because of what it contains, but because of what he thinks it might contain at some point in the future, which is a very strange argument indeed, unless for some reason he is ideologically opposed to the idea that any article on Wikipedia might be allowed to discuss and catalogue the relationship between tyranny and arms control and the various views on that relationship that have been held by scholars, academics and political leaders throughout history, regardless of what the article contains, or whether or not it is written from a neutral point of view, or whether or not the article contains existing or original research.

If anyone has violated the neutral point of view policy, it is RickinBaltimore. What exactly are you alleging is so un-neutral or original about this article, RickinBaltimore? Are you suggesting that no article of any kind that is about the relationship between arms control and tyranny should be allowed on Wikipedia? Do you think that any article that could possibly be written about this topic would inevitably bolster some points of view while calling into question other points of view, because the fact that there is a relationship and that this relationship has been observed throughout history would? Well that may be the case, since facts do influence people's point of view (sometimes), but that does not mean that the article's point of view is not neutral just because there is in fact a relationship between tyranny and arms control and scholars throughout history have debated and discussed this relationship from many different perspectives. The discussion of a relationship between tyranny and arms control is neither my original work (as much as I would like to take credit for it) nor a fundamentally non-neutral topic, as should be plain to see for anyone who truly approaches the topic from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The wiki authority (talk • contribs) 20:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't have an opinion on the subject of this article, I merely view this from this question: "How does this article fit within Wikipedia's policies?" I see that you have been given the suggestion to work on this in draft space. May I add my recommendation to that as well. Working on this as a draft can allow you to edit and revise this as you go. As the article is now in the main space of Wikipedia, it's a work of original research. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Explain your arguments in detail. Why do you think this is original research? What is original about it? Why do you think it is not written from a neutral point of view? Simply stating that there is a relationship is neither original nor biased in any way. The real originators of the research are clearly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The wiki authority (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if this is meant for me? Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  20:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This message is for anyone who wants to delete this page. Why do you think this is original research? What is original about it? Why do you think it is not written from a neutral point of view? Simply stating that there is a relationship between tyranny and arms control is neither original nor biased in any way. The real originators of the research are clearly cited. Deleting a page when it is not original research and it is written from a neutral point of view is outright censorship, which is a clear violation of numerous Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The wiki authority (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You can't delete an article because of what you think it might become. If you could, any article could be deleted based merely on your suspicion that it might become original research or that it might not be a neutral article at some point in the future. The article is a stub at the moment, like hundreds of thousands of other articles. You can't delete it based on its size either. What specifically is your reason for wanting to delete the article in its current form, not what you imagine it becoming in your worst nightmares? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The wiki authority (talk • contribs) 20:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying that no historian or academic has ever before postulated that there is a relationship between arms control and tyranny, Velella, Finngall, and RickinBaltimore? Seriously? You really think I came up with that idea? What do you think about this article: "How the Nazis Used Gun Control"? I did not write that article, and the whole article is about the relationship between arms control and the tyranny in Nazi Germany. What about this poll that shows that 65% of Americans believe there is a relationship between the right to bear arms and tyranny: "65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny"? I did not conduct that poll, nor did I publish the results. Your allegations that this is original research are therefore proven to be patently false. Do you still disagree? On what grounds? Do you disagree that these articles are pre-existing research on the relationship between tyranny and arms control? If so, please explain why and how you came to that conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The wiki authority (talk • contribs) 20:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've asked this question on your talk page, but perhaps you've missed it. Could you please explain why you can't allow the article as is to be deleted and work on the draft for now and submit it for WP:AFC in the future when it is more complete? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Why I can't allow the article as it is to be deleted? The burden of proof is not on the person who does not want the article to be deleted, but on the person who wants to delete it. You must show that " a page obviously and uncontroversially" does not belong in an encyclopedia for one of the reasons stated in the Wikipedia Deletion Policy. Obviously, the deletion of this article is controversial, because I object to it. Therefor, you may not delete the article according to Wikipedia policies. Do you have any constructive suggestion as to how the article may be improved? I have clearly shown that the article is not original research (by citing pre-existing research) and that it is neutrally written, since only the fact that there is a relationship between arms control and tyranny is stated in the existing article, along with the fact that hundreds of writers, political leaders and philosophers throughout history have discussed this relationship, without giving any opinions of my my own. No one involved in the deletion discussion explained their view as to why they thought the article was original research nor why they thought it was not written from a neutral point of view, nor did they offer any suggestions as to how the article could be improved. The snowball clause was not applicable either, because there are thousands of other wikipedians who believe there is a relationship between tyranny and arms control and who believe the topic is notable. Give me some time and I will find them, but again, I don't have to find them to prevent the deletion of the article, I only have to show that the deletion is controversial by contesting it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.48.100 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You were told by MULTIPLE editors with a vast amount of experience that the article as it stood was not ready to be published in the mainspace and to work on this as a draft. I would suggest that you please listen to these recommendations, including mine. This article was not ready to be published. WOrk on this as a draft, and when it's ready THEN send it through the AfC process. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Why I can't allow the article as it is to be deleted? The burden of proof is not on the person who does not want the article to be deleted, but on the person who wants to delete it. You must show that " a page obviously and uncontroversially" does not belong in an encyclopedia for one of the reasons stated in the Wikipedia Deletion Policy. Obviously, the deletion of this article is controversial, because I object to it. Therefor, you may not delete the article according to Wikipedia policies. Do you have any constructive suggestion as to how the article may be improved? I have clearly shown that the article is not original research (by citing pre-existing research) and that it is neutrally written, since only the fact that there is a relationship between arms control and tyranny is stated in the existing article, along with the fact that hundreds of writers, political leaders and philosophers throughout history have discussed this relationship, without giving any opinions of my my own. No one involved in the deletion discussion explained their view as to why they thought the article was original research nor why they thought it was not written from a neutral point of view, nor did they offer any suggestions as to how the article could be improved. The snowball clause was not applicable either, because there are thousands of other wikipedians who believe there is a relationship between tyranny and arms control and who believe the topic is notable. Give me some time and I will find them, but again, I don't have to find them to prevent the deletion of the article, I only have to show that the deletion is controversial by contesting it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to contest deletion, the proper venue for that is WP:DRV. Scratch that per WP:DRVPURPOSE. clpo13(talk) 19:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Why would I spend more time editing the article in a draft form when deletionist editors are clearly intent on preventing any article on the relationship between tyranny and arms control from being published, regardless of the contents of the article? Again, you do not have consensus to delete the article, and the article as it is is a stub which should be improved, not deleted. These "experienced" editors have all outright refused to either explain why they believe the article is not neutral or is original work, or to suggest improvements, or to acknowledge that indeed there are many reliable sources that explain the relationship between tyranny and arms control. Why is that? Is it perhaps because they want to delete the article because it conflicts with their point of view, not because it violates any Wikipedia policies? Experience does not make right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's try this again. Why do you think the article is not written from a neutral point of view? Do you deny that the cited references are reliable, published material that explains the relationship between tyranny and arms control? If so, why? If not, then the article may not be deleted just because you don't like the fact that there is a relationship between tyranny and arms control, or because you don't like the implications of that facts, because deleting the article for that reason would be failing to maintain a neutral point of view on your part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not in a state that it's ready to be published. I don't care about the topic to be honest and don't have an opinion on it, but what I do care about is the fact the article wasn't ready for publication. I'm encouraging you to work on it as a draft, to have it finalized and ready to go then publish it. If I was against the topic, I wouldn't recommend that. Please listen to what everyone has suggested, rather than turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'll even offer my help on getting your draft together and how to have it ready to go if you want. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, your opinion that the article is not ready is not a reason to delete it. If you think the article needs more information, then please feel free to contribute to it. I am going to contribute to it one paragraph at a time, because this deletionist mentality has made it a battle to have even the most uncontroversial, neutral and clearly not original research paragraph published. The article does not appear either on Wikipedia or in the deletion logs at this time though, so that makes it rather difficult to even contest the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)