Deletion of Erich Heller

Comment: This is a page with a long history. To assert now, after half a year, that the original page was mistakenly created, beggars belief. We do not allow wikilawyering about speedy deletion to trump the basic principle that content once submitted should not be 'revoked' by an author, who finds that editing here is collective. CSD G7 should not be a loaded gun that any page's original author can point at the community, as a threat, in order to get leverage on the page's content.  applies here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)

Comment: per the above, it seems completely untenable to suggest an article created a long time ago with over 500 edits by the nominator was done "in error".  The actual history of the article appears revealing edit summary such as "(art split off and moved from userpage without user's approval or consent, in an act of hidden vandalism)" and it's original userfication do support the suggestion that the nominator is actually complaining about their lack of ability to have long term exclusive control on the article, |not a free webhost. Irrespective G7 is not a "will" be deleted, but "can" be deleted, we aren't in the business of deleting encyclopedic material to fulfil some bureaucratic process (|not a bureacracy etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: Please don't let's stand on ceremony and the GFDL in a case where  Wikipedia:common sense|common sense ought rather to prevail. The article is clearly of immense value to the main author and of little value to Wikipedia, being written in an |unencyclopedic, reverential, circumlocution|circumlocutory mode. Did you people who want it kept actually read it? I ''don't'' mean to suggest anybody's commenting carelessly, I'm sure you checked out the facts in the text and the claims to notability, but did you read it as a piece of writing? Yes, it could probably be ruthlessly edited down to an encyclopedic stub, but why lacerate the user's feelings (and incur his |flamethrower) for so little gain?  It would surely be simpler to start over and write a new, Wikipedia-type, article about Erich Heller. I nominate Charles Matthews, who knows the subject. ;-) Note that I'm ''not'' proposing that the page be reuserfied, there's been enough of that. I'm sure the user has somewhere off wikipedia to put it.  It has generated enough |battleground, please let's get rid of it, and also of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prof02/Erich_Heller/v.1.0 this newly created userspace fork, and any future versions which may be created using Wikipedia resources without being freely editable by Wikipedians
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NPA||WP:NOT)