Deletion of Technocracy Study Course (2nd nomination)

Comment: Endless edit wars?  Nonsense.  Things have been calm until this AfD without discussing any of the issues in talk.  The issue of Notability had been addressed in the talk page there was no follow-on discussion for for **7 months**.  As far as I can see, the article is Notable.  There was never any discussion in talk about '', , and arguably '' in the talk page either.  And now we see out of nowhere an AfD request.  Nonsense.  Why are the alleged COI, NPOV and SPS issues not being discussed?  There is no need to merge a small amount, redirect and protect as suggested by DGG.  The intent is to burn and bury this content from Wikipedia permanently.  I disagree. "there can always be justice if all are given a fair playing field with which to form consensus under listed guidelines." - Datheisen  Think about it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:NPOV||WP:SPS)

Comment: see below -- , , and arguably  from admission linked here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Skipsievert&diff=prev&oldid=236113985, etc, delete, unless a proper justification can be given beyond a generic  in which case merge. As the editor inserted him/herself into this discussion by free will, I'd say that  with association to editor would allow the edit archive links given be used for an evaluation of the overall topic. An explanation of edits done to hide discussion of own NPOV issues in articles and break AfD discussion standards is needed or the COI is blatant. If an article is truly written to just, proper standards and the editor has nothing to hide from then it should speak for itself and the editor would never need to speak on its behalf in defense, which is why I can't say it should be kept. Even a merged article would probably need a rewrite to avoid any later need for debate on similar grounds as this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:NPOV||WP:SPS||WP:N||WP:RRULE)

Comment: Johnfos-- can you cite evidence of  to back up your claim? I will assume that's the meaning you had
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: I appreciate information from both sites. Merge per DGG's suggestion. After looking a little deeper into things I can see there are far bigger issues to hammer out, but in the instance of this article I can't see why putting the bits of unique information into the parent article and that seems like a reasonable compromise between deletion and endless edit wars. Though I don't want to be bullied away from discussion by a  pouncing, this seems like quite a simple something to resolve versus what involved editors here already have on their plates
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)