Admins: Please consider the ongoing deletion review of this close before attempting to enforce it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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.

This result has been overturned to no consensus at DRV. Individual relisting are available as normal; mass relisting is disfavored, please. Xoloz 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Keep pages from active participants (most, I would suggest any with contributions outside userspace) and Delete pages from completely non-active participants. This was another very tough decision, and I tried to seek some middle-ground in doing so. Although there is a somewhat greater number of keep votes, a fair number of the keeps do seem to be motivated by users simply desiring to keep their signature vote. I do not criticize such users for doing so, but such arguments cannot be given equal weight. That being said, there is a scarcity of policy on either side of this discussion (and arguments on both side regarding the importance of Jimbo's thoughts on the matter), but I will reference what policy and guidelines I can. The following quotation regarding discouraged content from WP:USER is illuminating: 

  [do not include] Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment"
  rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in
  the project."

This, and the substantial minority advocating the middle ground led me to my decision. Active participants in the project should be given more leeway for their userspace.

Also, see WP:NOT#MYSPACE point 1: 

   Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information
   relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make
   use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social
   networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. (emphasis mine).

Active participants in the project are the individuals who will be actively collaborating. Part of this active collaboration involves community-building, which signature pages could be considered part of (and community-building is something that wikipedia could use more of right now). Admins should assume good faith in making future determinations if a user is an active participant. My hope is that this will spur some inactive users to become active. I suggest a week-long moratorium on any deletions to give editors time to begin making article space contributions if they have not done so.

Some have also cited Esperanza's deletion as a criterion. Given that Esperanza's downfall was due in large part to the Bureaucracy that it became, signature pages do not seem to fit this mold. That being said, lists of signature pages are a step in the wrong direction and should be deleted as well.

Spamming and signatures are not the issue here, although many bring them up. I agree that talk-page spamming, in particular, is annoying and should be dealt with appropriately per WP:CANVASS. There is clear consensus for this. If individuals wish to clarify the signature guideline, please participate in such discussion at WP:SIG. All the best. IronGargoyle 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin's procedural clarification. I had planned to close all these nominated pages to avoid editcountitis. However, circumstances in my off-wiki life have changed within the past several hours and I will not be editing or visiting wikipedia for the forseeable future. I would suggest that any user with fewer than 100 mainspace edits would have their autograph book on the one-week bubble to avoid any ambiguity. Regards, IronGargoyle 03:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted autograph books[edit]

  • User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz/signatures (added 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC) after it was found speedily deleted)
  • User:ANNAfoxlover/Autographs (added the one that started the current WP:AN discussion —Doug Bell talk 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • User:Smartie960/Autographs (added speedy-deleted page from above WP:AN thread that has been recreated —Doug Bell talk 18:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merged from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cremepuff222 (closed)
    User:Cremepuff222/Autograph_Book
    User:Cremepuff222/Autograph_Book_Header — xaosflux Talk 03:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:The Transhumanist/Gotcha!, which is linked from a prank "you have new messages" notice at User:The Transhumanist/Workshop (as (still?) being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Practical jokes in "new message" boxes). --Quiddity 05:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I cannot fathom why such things exist. I cannot think of anything more useless than going through a bunch of userspace subpages and littering one's signature anywhere, nor can I figure out why anyone would want such a thing. This trend needs to be nipped in the bud before we have hundreds of pointless "autograph books" with thousands of pointless "autographs". All of this stuff is definitely not permissible per WP:USER as well, so there's your policy rationale for deletion. --Cyde Weys 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I still support this MFD. --Cyde Weys 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: "not permissible per WP:USER" is simply false, as that guideline is worded "discouraged" and was added today (and has currently been removed, as it is under discussion). -- Renesis (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming from anyone else, I would believe. Coming from you, no. Read WP:ADMIN or WP:BLOCK lately? ♥ Fredil 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC) P.S.: Just to avoid confusion, that was directed at Cyde.[reply]
    "You keep asking how they [signature books] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to WP:EA. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly."[1]
    That was Jimbo Wales himself. And I completely agree with it. You know, not ALL of us are spamming everyone to sign the books. Shouldn't you just delete the ones who are spamming? All the autogpraphs books do is saying hello. It's user friendly. Peace, ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what they always say. But has Wikipedia really turned into MySpace? Besides, remember that Jimbo actually approves of these pages. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 05:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with what Jimbo said- "Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly." I'm not prepared to vote delete because they remind people of Esperanza. Even if they do remind you of Esperanza, they weren't a part of it, and there'll never be a "signature Esperanza" (am I making sense?). I'm also not prepared to vote keep, because, as clearly outlined above, these pages are non-encyclopedic and seem to be a violation of WP:USER- although on that I'd like to refer to what I said at the start of my comment. Cheers- CattleGirl talk | sign! 08:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note the explicit probibition was just added today - so we have a circular problem. Agathoclea 12:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everyone's spamming. Generalising from some individuals to every owner of these pages is rather unwise. Ban spamming, then, not the books, however it's another issue which has nothing to do with this MfD. S. Miyano 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, Cyde didn't try to delete Esperanza and Concordia. I did. And I succeeded. I fail to see how sticking your name on a user subpage somehow encourages editing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of thing (spamming) is a major problem. The pages themselves aren't a big deal; it's the massive SIGN HERE! in the signature, and the user begging everyone to sign that is. Majorly (o rly?) 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tend to agree with User:Majorly here but having autograph books and spamming are two separate issues. Yes to autograph books, no to spamming about them. Spamming is already covered in guidelines. (→Netscott) 18:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then let's keep the autograph books, and ban the spamming. The spamming is a MAJOR PROBLEM; the autograph pages, no harm done at all! I am also adding this to WP:SIG. A•N•N•Afoxlover 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wanna gives us a reason why? Everybody else seems to be doing so. // DecaimientoPoético 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Remove the lists of them (mine can be deleted after this mfd) and
    2. Discourage links to them in signatures (which was actually my idea). Tennis DyNamiTe 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good couple of points IMHO. Just don't forget to mention the spamming that has gone around as of late. · AO Talk 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Well, getting rid of the lists and the signatures should help a little. Perhaps we need to leave some messages on some talk pages... Tennis DyNamiTe 23:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 01:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep I can understand how Espranza was de-centralized (deleted) but destroying every bit of fun on Wikipedia is not the best solution. We are not just an encyclopedia, we are a community and at least a little amount of fun is necessary for Wikipedia (Would you like want to vandal-fight all day and do encyclopedia writing when it is not even worthid without tiny bits of fun?). A subpage filled with quotes or autographs is OK unless it is some new contributor who only edits his own user page and leaves (or spam which is not in this case). Espranza was a much different story...--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 03:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has already voted above. Majorly (o rly?) 14:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've striken the word Keep on this comment so as not to confuse others. — xaosflux Talk 15:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They've worked hard on their autograph books instead of on the encyclopedia. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 14:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, only delete the autograph pages that have been worked on too much. A•N•N•Afoxlover 15:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is to decide what is too much? A blanket ban on them all is the best option, and it will prevent any more being created. Majorly (o rly?) 15:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not delete the autograph pages that have been worked on more than the encyclopedia? The autograph pages themselves aren't the problem, but when people work on thier autograph pages too much, then THAT'S the problem. A•N•N•Afoxlover 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody works on their own autograph pages, that would defeat the point. And how is "more than the encyclopedia" going to be defined? -Amarkov moo! 17:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean by that is that the users who spend more time editing their autograph pages than they spend editing the encyclopedia should have their autograph pages deleted. A•N•N•Afoxlover 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but Wikipedia should have at least a little bit of fun. If the fun can't be on the encyclopedia, where else would it be? It also promotes WikiLove. A•N•N•Afoxlover 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. And in responce to Skult of Caro, yes, they are non-encyclopedic, but these are not actual articles! They are subsections of a user page.
    2. And in responce to the actual reason for deleting them all, I don't know why they exist. Maybe to see what people have done with their sigs, to see how their's is in a diffrent color, in cursive, etc.

    --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How many tildes was that? — MichaelLinnear 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Twenty I suppose. The Behnam 03:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean they don't help? They promote WikiLove, and also give other people a little bit of fun. If not, they'd be editing all day, fighting vandals all day, patrolling the recent changes all day, etc. And the autograph pages aren't even articles! They are only user subpages that even Jimbo Wales approves of. They DO help. A•N•N•Afoxlover 13:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly why I think they need to stay! A•N•N•Afoxlover 14:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Comment - Folks, Jimbo, great guy that he is, is not God. As noted at Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, he has also noted that "I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think." Let's stick to discussing the merits, and cut back on the appeals to "but Jimbo said..."--ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Okay then, actions speak louder than words. [2] [3] [4][5]. Seriously, popping by some pages and greeting one another don't waste much time (some users above want to delete the books for this reason). People visit these autograph books and sign of their own accord, they're not forced to do so. With a look, you can see a number of regular Wikipedia editors who love to visit these pages, and as Ac1983fan mentioned above, if you don't like them, don't sign them. No policies are violated, nominating others' valid subpages for deletion is by no means a good idea, not to say this MfD seems WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me S. Miyano 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion - Still keeping in mind that Jimbo Wales is not God or even the Supreme Leader, perhaps we should ask him for his opinion again, with him taking this page into consideration? I don't believe he has voted here but it might be useful to know if he'd reconsider his old position due to the arguments here. The Behnam 18:24, 12 March 2007 (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.
    More