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 Snow delete without prejudice against recreation if an Wikipedia-compliant version can be created. We judge deletion on what the article in question is, not what it has the potential to be, and there is no realistic possibility of this article in its current state being improved to Wikipedia standards in the week this AFD has to run, so the result is inevitable barring an unlikely miracle. Given that the fact of this AFD discussion even existing is causing intense debate which is taking up a lot of editor time, keeping it open just to go through the motions serves no useful purpose. If the article creator (or anyone else) genuinely believes that they can rework it into something which meets Wikipedia's rules in terms of encyclopedic content, neutrality, and reliable sourcing while avoiding synthesis, I'm more than happy to restore it to either draft or user space to allow them to work on it for a reasonable time. ‑ Iridescent 22:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed by the author. Article appears to be an essay or original research that is not written from a WP:NPOV. While sources exist, this would be more of an essay than an encyclopedic article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Author has claimed he needs (a lot) more time, but I don't see this heading towards anything encyclopedic. Just because someone supports individual components of an essay with sources doesn't mean it's still not original research. ubiquity (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could see that this was shaping up to be a massive wall of original research, but in the interest of assuming good faith I tried moving it to draft space where the author could work on it at their leisure. But given that the author is persisting in working in mainspace (apparently because WP:ITSIMPORTANT), I have to evaluate the article as it is, and at best it is simply not ready for prime time. And while I tend (sometimes to a fault) to stick with assessing the current state of an article as opposed to what will be there or what could be there, it doesn't look promising for all the reasons given by the "delete" !voters above. --Finngall ^talk 20:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This article is original research in the way that this is defined in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not like academic papers, they do not draw arguments together to make a conclusion. Wikipedia article report on conclusions that others have made and published and report that without interpretation. The content may be admirable but in Wikipedia terms, not notable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure WP:OR and not wirtten neutrally. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:03, 23 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.