Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No angry mastodons just madmen

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 discussion was keep. Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No angry mastodons just madmen

Attack page. Durova⁴¹² 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against who? It's a poorly written essay, but I don't see any attacks going on. Maybe a veiled reference to the author of wp:No angry mastodons, but that's about it. If you just object to that, remove it. I don't really get the point of the essay (are they saying to ignore troublemakers? That's often a good idea, and even if you disagree with it, this is an essay). Maybe it should be moved to user space. Buddy431 (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference isn't veiled; the other author is named specifically and the principal thrust of the essay is to assert that author is mentally unsound. Durova⁴¹² 21:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attack? Is it veiled, confused or just weird? There seem to be reasonable opinions interspersed, but I don't immediately see the point of making veiled reference Durova. Why make references to past disputes? If there is a useful point to be made, then it needs to be made clearer. If not, then it is "negative information related to others without very good reason", cf WP:UP#POLEMIC, and should be deleted. Is there a history of antagonism between these two Wikid77 (talk · contribs) and Durova (talk · contribs)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No valid reason provided for deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as revised. I didn't realize the author of the prior essay would be so offended by the wording, so I replaced the original phrase with generalized wording as:

"Some Wikipedia users have become entangled in personal disputes and have spent months in arbitration to settle user conflicts."

It was not my intention to launch an attack on the original author, so the generalized wording is sufficient to warn people that they should be ready for fight or flight around other users, because some users can become hostile. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today's edit to a thread that had been dormant for four years looked quite odd,[1] plus rerating the essay's importance from "low" to "top"[2] seemed odd at first, then the essay itself appeared to be structurally a personal attack. Several of the incidents that inspired the original no angry mastodons essay involved users who were later sitebanned, but it would be against the spirit of it to use usernames or readily identifiable traits. I wondered why this person had taken such a negative interest in me for a year. When in doubt, please ask. Userfication would be appreciated. Durova⁴¹² 00:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not an attack page, and no substantive reason for deletion given. A lot of it may be (is) totally wrong, but that is not grounds for deletion either. More to the point, were one to ignore the essay, one would not be associated as being one of the impetuses for the essay - silence is golden. Collect (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reads like an alternative POV - not angry, not attacking, just expressing a different opinion.--SPhilbrick T 16:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.