Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scott MacDonald/On Slim virgins and arbcom dragons


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep - Whilst this is obviously a good faith nomination, there is clearly going to be an overwhelming consensus to keep the page. Some users commenting seem to have strong emotions about the contents of the page and it favours the project to close this MfD and get back to doing things that matter.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Scott MacDonald/On Slim virgins and arbcom dragons
No offense to Scott I just think it is needlessly rubbing salt into the wounds to have this here at this time, right after someone has been desysopped etc. It's causing yet more discussion and jibes on its talk page, when we should all be left/encouraged to get on with things and put it behind us, people have suffered enough:)

It's an interesting essay and he has some perceptive, funny points such as in the possible motions, but I don't think it's very tactful or constructive for people, it's just leading to people prolonging and mutating the arguments in yet another forum to that in which they're being prolonged elsewhere. If it's kept he could rename it and make it a slightly more general essay rather than mentioning someone by name (or perhaps even focusing on a particular recent quarrel).

Scott says the onus should be on SlimVirgin to say if she has any difficulties with being commented on in the essay, but "(finds it) unlikely that she will have any objection to me expressing my opinion in this manner."

I doubt she would want to outright object in case people use her doing so to disapprove of her more or in case her doing so makes her seem other than she would wish, but I think the onus is on us not to be more tactless etc and possibly hurtful than we need to be, maybe that's just me though and if most people disagree and think it's ok then I will accept that. Please no more slaggings-off of individuals than necessary in this MfD:) Sticky Parkin 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Sticky Parkin 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh for pete's sake. This is tendentious. SlimVirgin herself and a number of arbs have commented on this essay. Whilst many disagree with it strongly, none have objected to its existence, or its title. SlimVirgin has my e-mail and she is welcome to raise any issues she has with the existence of this, and I will respond appropriately. But I've interacted with Sarah enough that I'd be very surprised if she'd object to an essay or to me expressing my opinions in this manner (the essay is not primarily about her, and whilst critical is not at all disrespectful). Sticky Parker, can I ask whether you contacted Slim before defending her honour? No, really did you? Unnecessary drama.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; it's an essay. Self-declared as an opinion piece on current Wikipedia governance; this is generally considered acceptable, and I see no reason why the current situation would make it any less so.  I might have objected to it if it had been placed in project space; but in user space only egregious personal attacks could justify its deletion &mdash; I see instead great care to avoid being overly confrontational.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - people can say whatever they want in an essay as long as it's not personal attacks. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved to User:Scott MacDonald/When to shoot an admiral. If anyone can think of a better title, let me know.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't agree with the content in it's entirety - but for god's sake, we're allowed to debate - divisions will remain without thought and the clear setting out of positions - see dispute resolution principles. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is large enough, big enough and (I was going to say ugly enough, but that would get me banned in the present climate) and broad minded enough to cope with essays such as this. To delete this page would amounts to censorship of thought. Read it, digest it, think about and then do whatever, but don't delete it. Giano (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I strongly disagree with Scott's reading of the situation, but this MfD is absurd. Apparently it's based on WP:IAR – no valid reason for deleting the essay has been offered. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason for deletion, and I happen to favor user essays in general. Collect (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and snow close. If there were personal attacks, I might vote to delete, but I don't see any. Jehochman Talk 21:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The nutshell on the page clearly states the standing of such opinion pieces; in the absence of any violation of WP policies then there is no rationale to delete. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Bandwagon time! --harej 21:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, lest the response I've been planning be wasted. Recommend withdrawal or WP:SNOW closure of this MfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.