User:Bishonen, for his or her part, changed tack and chipped in with the suggestion that the deletion request should be granted after all, on the grounds that the article in question is written in ‘an unencyclopedic, reverential, circumlocutory mode’ and altogether unsuitable for Wikipedia.  In a word, trash.  The tangle of contradictions supplied by the two users, User:Charles Matthews and User:Bishonen, has thus come the full circle.  (Why has an article that is a work-in-progress been wrenched, surreptitiously, from the user’s subpage in the first place if it is so unsuitable for Wikipedia, and why have the author’s subsequent requests for its re-merger and later deletion been so ferociously and repeatedly contested?  It seems that the final answers to these questions may only be provided by clinical psychology.)