Deletion of Brandish Corner

Comment: Ludicrous, completely-expected, retaliatory, knee-jerk; more than just suggestive of abandonment and abuse of Wikipedia's supposedly-inherent GF ethos. I wrote https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ginger_Hall&diff=prev&oldid=633305164 in November: "''I have now had the opportunity to go through contributions to ascertain that the same editor has nominated for deletion - or intends to nominate - many more TT Course locations than I originally surmised.''", and, "''Using the catch-all ploy of 'notability' is inappropriate where consecutive historic physical localities are involved.''" and "''this is one location in a consecutive series''" and "'' the whole doesn't work with pieces of the jigsaw missing.''" and "''10 or so articles already, what next??''" and "''Frankly I am dismayed''" As agljones has stated elsewhere, the TT course is unique; it merits facilitation, not interference and counter-production.I predicted these wholesale intended-deletions, so blame me. Accordingly I developed this Brandish article in December 2014 - much as I done with Ginger Hall (throwing it together at the kitchen table) which was eventually '''deleted by agljones''' https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snaefell_Mountain_Course&diff=638038980&oldid=637969340 (it's gone but the redirect still works) after incorporation and, despite consensus to merge, Agljones did what '''he''' saw fit. He has been allowed to assume complete control of any IoM article, contrary to  witnessed, self-confessed, at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course where he displays resentment of other editors' contributions and differing styles. This is contrary to Wikipedia fundamentals. My work is seldom reverted or deleted, but I guess I could list 20 such total deletions by {{ping|agljones}}Passively allowing a one-stripe editor like agljones to exercise dominance over such articles as Snaefell Mountain Course has already resulted in text-walling; incorporating more articles will just worsen readability. There is no restriction on server space - all the past versions are kept, albeit some are hidden - so why the obsession with what '''was''' intended to be deletion, of many articles, ''per se
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)