Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books

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

• Note: This MfD page was created on 11th January but the debate didn't really start until 8th March. Since MfDs are typically discussed for 5 days, the closing date of this MfD should be as early as possible on the 13th March. --Deskana (talk) 17:51, 8 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]

• Oppose the deletion. Look, even if they are a violation of WP:USER, I cannot imagine what the problem is with having a simple little page to sign your name. I feel that autograph books promote a sense of community, because whenever one sees a new autograph in their book, they go to either talk to the signer or to sigh that person's book. And what's wrong with this increased familiarity and communication? --tennisman ^{sign here!} 04:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per tennisman. Kamope · talk · contributions 00:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all a complete waste of time. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per reasons for deleting the category. These are a violation of WP:USER, and Wikipedia is not a chat room. These do nothing to help the encyclopedia. --Coredesat 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not screwing with user's pages keeps them happy, which helps the encyclopaedia immensely. —Pengo 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. This isn't really a situation for WP:IAR. It's a violation of WP:USER, and should therefore be deleted. Nishkid64 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USER is a guideline, not a policy. S. Miyano 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my userspace test of "is this harmful in any way?" It's not worth the trouble to delete it otherwise. -Amarkov moo! 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, it's no trouble at all. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is. Many people don't just calmly accept people deleting their subpages. Especially in a mass nomination like this. -Amarkov moo! 00:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:USER#Removal. While I'm not entirely happy the way this MfD was created, these pages do not belong to anyone, and while they don't damage the project, they certainly don't improve it. By deleting, we discourage any more of these types of pages, and in this way we can avoid users spamming other users to come sign it, in their signature or otherwise. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These are all active contributors in good faith, and I see no reason why these should be deleted. They are a great way to make connections with other users. Abeg92contribs 01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have talk and discussion pages to connect with other users. They may be active, but only in decorating their userspace. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all wikipedia is not myspace, not useful to the encyclopedia in anyway Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete all complete waste of time; and yes it is harmful as spamming is harmful, only focusing on userspace is harmful. And etc. ~ Arjun 01:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spamming is harmful no doubt, however autograph books benefit the collaboration of the community. Not everyone is spamming, not everyone is focusing on userspace only, etc. Many of them are efficient Wikipedia editors, nominating their subpages for deletion is a bad idea. S. Miyano 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If you want an autograph book, then get active and create talk page archives. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong, not replaceable. Autograph books are like lists of friends on Wikipedia. Talk pages don't serve that purpose S. Miyano 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all... um... yeah... they should be banned. :) useless, vio of WP:USER... Cbrown1023 talk 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USER is not a policy, and these pages aren't useless. S. Miyano 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while I definitely believe in a meta-community aspect, the community of Wikipedians should only be for the sake of the encyclopedia's improvement. These pages do nothing to improve the project. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask you: How do user pages in general "improve the project"? FYI, autograph books build the community spirit and make many editors happier, that's the benefit. S. Miyano 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - These are harmful because they distract people from the purpose of this project: writing an encyclopedia. They also have the unfortunate tendency to spawn imitators and encourage nagging in signatures. —dgies^t_c 02:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, its a bit more nuanced. Ones which are being advertised by comment spam or nagging signatures should be deleted, but ones which are simply linked from the user page are not disruptive and should be kept per Jimbo. —dgies^t_c 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment has someone alerted any of these users that their pages are up for nomination? I don't see templates on the random bunch I looked at or messages at their respective owner's user talk page. Metros232 02:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP: Deleting them is fucking completely idiotic. Useful for the social fabric of Wikipedia. Deleting these would be pissing off a lot of people for absolutely no good reason. Please point to the exact section of WP:USER which disallows autograph books. —Pengo 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please be more civil in this discussion. Thanks, Metros232 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep all - Sigh. I knew it would come to this. May I post this?

"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]

• Note, The nominator appears to be taking a careless approach to this discussion; several of the nominated pages were already deleted, and at least one was a redirect to a page that had nothing to do with autographs, additionally no pages were tagged for this mfd. I've noted this debate on WP:VPP to attrack editors interested in the userpage guideline. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've delisted the pages that were redlinks above, and the redirect to a non-signature book page. Was this a copy-n-paste list from somewhere? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. We have a tough enough time getting folks to remember that we're an encyclopedia without going out of our way to, you know, not be an encyclopedia. --Robth^Talk 03:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all because of the sense of community it builds and also "is this harmful in any way?" Additionally little minor things like this I feel is a good way for newbies to cut their teeth on editing before stepping out into the more scary world of editing a real article where people might pounce on them for making one wrong move. Mathmo ^Talk 03:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP 1) There are so many, it would be hard to delete them all.2)As stated above: "You keep asking how they [signature books] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to Wikipedia:Esperanza. 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."3)If it is to be deleted, I would still like to keep a small part as a guestbook for visiting real-life friends to comment.Reywas92^Talk 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Entirely non-encyclopedic. User talk:WAS 4.250
• Strong Keep. Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia, but hey, what's so bad about having a little fun on this site? Without anything to do other than fix articles and revert vandalism, everything gets extremely boring, and then there wouldn't really be a point in visiting this site anymore. C'mon, even good ol' Jimbo approves of these autograph pages.~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 04:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Yes, I would like to be friends with everyone around here, but we need to remember that this is a waste of donors' money. If we allow things like these, Wikipedia will soon turn into MySpace. utcursch | talk 04:39, 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]

• Delete All per above. I glanced over archives of Esperanza, and this reminds me of the exact same thing. Real96 04:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE, This MFD was not listed at WP:MFD by the original nominator, Cyde. This may have been a work-in-progress, and/or an aborted nomination. I've striken portions of my earlier note and left the nominator a note. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unnecessary things. They remind me of Esperanza for some reason..--양복⁴² 05:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• VERY Strongly Delete ALL Pointless/Waste of Time, this is Wikipedia people! Not Myspace! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 06:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, and comment- although I don't really care whether the pages get deleted or not, I've got a few things I want to say. I've read through the above comments and see people saying things like "violation of WP:USER. So that I know for the future, would somebody be able to show me what the violation is? I've looked through WP:USER and haven't seen anything about autograph books besides "your userpage is not a myspace page". On the contrary, I don't think the autograph books are like myspace pages at all, and I also don't find them damaging to Wikipedia. I see them as a place of humour, interesting signatures, and a place to say hi. I can see your points though- this can distract people from why we're really here- to build an encyclopedia. So far, people with autograph books are solid editors who edit Wikipedia above advertise their autograph books, but I can understand that in the future it might be different.

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]

• Delete All per Cyde. I can't think of one good thing these do to build an encyclopedia. Maybe a Myspace, but certainly not an encyclopedia. alphachimp 09:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jimbo. See here and here. Agathoclea 10:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:USER; I didn't know it was a violation of policy. User:Tennis Dynamite/autograph books has a more complete list of all the places to sign than the one above. · AO Talk 10:52, 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]

• Change to keep, per Nescott. · AO Talk 01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jimbo Wales's statement and for the sense of community spirit, although spamming and mass-requesting probably should be prohibited. CounterFX 11:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But have you noticed that Wikipedia:Esperanza has been deactivated? It's no longer a valid reason to keep. · AO Talk 12:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, but Jimbo Wales's statement is dated 2006-12-20, by which time the first MfD debate on Esperanza had already taken place and been closed as no consensus (on 2006-11-15). This implies that Jimbo posted his statement despite the fact that Esperanza was already being considered for de-activation. To clarify my stance, I personally would not bother setting up an autograph book for myself, but I believe that it is an extra source for motivation for the younger editors and should be permitted if it is not disruptive to Wikipedia's encyclopaedic function. CounterFX 12:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright then. Sorry my tone was a bit uncivil. :( · AO Talk 13:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all, you made a valid observation. CounterFX 16:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But I said it in a rude tone. "But have you noticed" sounds a bit off. My apologies to you. · AO Talk 01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All, this is a project to build an encyclopedia, not an online game. --Stormie 11:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. It feels pretty pointless to me, but if it helps some people feel a stronger connection to the community, then I don't see this as actually harmful. Dragons flight 13:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on User Page Policy. Independent of Cyde, but motivated by the same AN thread he also participated in, an explicit prohibition against guestbooks was added to WP:USER on the same day this MFD was posted. I have removed that prohibition as I feel it confuses the issue to create a new prohibition in the midst of a deletion discussion, as doing so provides one side of the discussion with the appearance of having settled consensus on their side even while the issue is still being discussed. As I am arguably not a neutral party (see vote directly above), I wanted to call attention to this action. Dragons flight 14:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, it's true that we're not Myspace but it is also true that we're not The Borg. So long as autograph book users aren't spamming others about signing their books and aren't spending inordinate amounts of time devoted to maintaining such books (ie: the autograph book to encyclopedic contribution ratio is low) then I don't particularly see much any harm in user's keeping such books. They help foster good will amongst editors which is definitely needed on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 14:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Wikipedia is a community. Autograph/signature pages provide editors the means to make contact, thus building a better and stronger community. Completely harmless. --Edokter (Talk) 14:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and warn/block those that spam user talk pages and/or do nothing besides having autograph books. As long as we obey our other rules (don't spam, contribute to the encyclopedia), this is perfectly fine. --Conti|✉ 14:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, what's wrong with these, don't like thme, don't sign them.--Ac1983fan 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Conti, with no prejudice against deleting the Guestbook pages of non-contributors. Keeping Wikipedians happy helps build an encyclopedia more than this MfD does. Kusma (t) 15:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, meaning no offense to regular contributors who sign/have these guestbooks. Perhaps create a main Wikipedia:Autograph book to hold signatures of anyone who's interested? (Or the Wikia Guestbook). – riana_dzasta 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as long as there is no spamming for signatures. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently, there is. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:55, 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]

• Very Strong Keep - I see no harm in Autograph books.Bryson^Talk 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per what WP:JIMBOSAID. There is absolutely no reason for a mass-MFD like this. It's more of a waste of time than the autograph books themselves! -- Renesis (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You're voting keep per a essay that says doing what Jimbo said, simply because Jimbo said it, is a bad idea? --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 17:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm being facetious. To clear it up, I think what Jimbo said is valid in this case. -- Renesis (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the clarification. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Handle on case by case basis, this started because some were causing disruption. I say Delete any that cause disruption, and Keep the ones that are not. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep, no, they're not causing disruption. I mean, there's like 50 of these books. This has been disscussed before. Some people who own the books are admins. Even Jimbo has signed some of them. The only problem I see with these books is that a few people are canvassing usertalkpages. This can be solved by telling them to stop. These books do not centralize themselves around people's edits, they only are there to say hello, and theyonly encourage editing. Just look at anyone's contribs who owns these books. Most of them have most of their contribs in other parts of wikipedia. Most people are actually keeping quiet. Some people are leaving wikipedia, possibly because they don't see anything to do. Deleting their page would make it worse. There are tens of thousands of pages of these nonencyclopedic pages. Youjust tried to delete esperanza and concordia. Now you're just making it worse. Possibly move them to a userspace sandbox, one with temporary contents, but not being deleted. Deleting too many of these pages will cause further disruption by possibly discouraging hundreds of well established users from wikipedia. Besides, then you'll just start to think things like talkpages and userpages and maintenance pages don't belong. This would result in a collapse. I realize I'm speculating, but this could happen if you keep trying to delete all nonencyclopedic pages. Please reconsider before it's too late. Also, this really isn't much of a violation. It's just for being friendly and encouraging good edits. Thanks. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 18:32, 8 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]

• Strong delete all per Majorly, Jaranda, Cbrown1023, and by what I said on the Administrators Noticeboard. Acalamari 19:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" does not mean that wikipedia should not also have a community. So long as these are productive editors, and don't spam or otherwise behave antisocially with these pages, I fail to see why they ought to be deleted. Userspace is traditionally given more latitude than any other space because, well, it's their personal space. This isn't grevious enough to fall afoul of the WP:NOT myspace prohibition, it's a little harmless fun. All Wikizens are volunteers, if it's no fun to be here, and if every non-work related page category and userbox is deleted with prejudice then what's the point of volunteering time? Wikipedia has a tough line to walk between being frivolous and seeming too much like a day job.Wintermut3 19:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP ALL. Especially one of it is MY SPACE (I understand the fact that userspaces aren't mine, in this case, I meant my space leased by Wikipedia, so please, do not misunderstand this)! I also want to keep these pages per above.  Smcafirst | Chit-Chat  posted at 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep All - Autograph books promote civility among editors, and that is neccisary for Wikipedia, regardless of if Esperanza is de-activated or not. Plus, Jimbo Wales himself supported autograph books. I see no evidence these pages harm or change the quality of Wikipedia and it's "Wikizens". Ryan ^{Got something to say?} 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ones that are being spammed in signatures to promote these pages, but you can keep any of them that are not being spammed. While I agree with the complete and utter uselessness of these pages, they are harmless. I also suggest we readd the text of the section called "Guestbooks" back to WP:USER. While they are harmless, I think that the spamming of them is very wrong and users spending more time on these pages rather than improving the encyclopedia is wrong as well. — Moe 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tohru Honda13. Also, if we delete this sort of thing we should concurrently delete comments of people who say "It's really sad that you've decided to stop editing" in the talk pages of editors who leave the project. Completely destroying community will completely destroy this encyclopedia. LastChanceToBe 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tohru/Jimbo. // DecaimientoPoético 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT; these are decorative, not encyclopedic. Neither signing my name on 100 random user pages, nor having a collection 100 random user signatures on a subpage, helps build an encyclopedia (no matter what Jimbo says). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename something like "links to other editors I know" page. Remember, these aren't just pieces of text, they are links to other people's user and talk pages. Merging them would be as useless as Special:Listusers. However, collecting them just for the collection, and talk page spamming should garner a warning for the former and a ban for the latter.--Rayc 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because trying to make the community more unpleasant to prove a point wastes much more time and energy than typing four tildaes on a user's subpage. Give me a break and go find something useful to work on. You hate people who have fun editing Wikipedia, we get it already. Milto LOL pia 22:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. I agree they're mostly pointless and harmless, but even if this were confined to talk pages, I don't think it should be encouraged. My understanding is that User talk: pages do contain some socializing, but experienced editors tend to go off-wiki for much of their socializing, even if it's with people they know on-wiki. --Interiot 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep on this in general, This discussion has two issue one is the book themselves the other is the problem thats spamming of talk pages and signatures for request for autographs. Personally I use a visitors book with my gallery of images on commons for comments and requests etc as such it gives me feed back on what I'm providing. I think that a policy/guideline needs to be developed to address the signature and talk page spamming but spirit of community and friendship built by the books should also be considered. Gnangarra 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep All Autograph Books As Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", and as Jimbo once 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." I disagree with deleting all of these autograph books, but under the spirit of the First Amendment, Wikipedia Policy, and moral integrity, I can not delete all of these "Agree with deletion" votes. However, under the spirit of the First Amendment, I can say that it appears to me that users who want these autograph books deleted want the community to be uncooperative, and unfriendly to one another. So in conclusion, these autograph books, among few other things, I will vehemently defend.  ~Steptrip 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion here on the autograph books, but please bear in mind that the First Amendment only applies to action by the government, not by a private party such as Wikipedia. In fairness, I assume you mean the spirit of the First Amendment rather than the constitutional provision itself. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.  ~Steptrip 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No prejudice on whether I may or may not agree with what you have said, but I confidently believe you said it well! CounterFX 01:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, you can say "it appears to me that users who want these autograph books deleted want the community to be uncooperative, and unfriendly to one another" under the spirit of the First Amendment; but under the spirit of Logic, your reasoning is invalid. Disapproval of autograph pages != desire for uncooperative and unfriendly relations. Not a dog 04:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, builds community happiness and plants august flowers for young orphaned children. Erm, I mean unity. Gracenotes^T § 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All, same reason as Gracenotes. It's a community spirit and wikipedia is built around a community. It's not getting in the way of main wikipedia articles. They are just through user pages. Keep the freedom...well...free! Timclare ^(talk) _{(sign here)} 02:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Two separate things: the lists of autograph books which have no useful purpose, and contribute to internal linkspam and should be deleted, and the books themselves, which are merely silly. Most active WP people probably keep a list of users somewhere, if only on their watchlist. I don't think we should really want to bother them about it, though--so keep the individual pages, which mostly have not been actually nominated anyway, but some of the people above think we are !voting on them anyway.DGG 04:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all:Userspace is not owned by users. Subpages are tolerated within reason for the creation of separate places for one's sandbox, watchlists, things to do, contribution lists, etc. All of the foregoing have encyclopedic purposes. WP:USER explicitly states that userpages are not blogs. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Even if they are "harmless" they do not belong on Wikipedia, because they're not what Wikipedia is about, and they're not what users are granted userspace for.—Perceval 05:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Harmless and fun. -Mschel 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a consensus-based community. The community controls the encyclopedia, and whatever helps the community become more unified as it grows is beneficial in the long run, in spite of it not being encyclopedic. Esperanza was something else, but a collection of signatures has no potential to cause harm, but it does have the potential to help people meet each other and somewhat unify a community divided by continental lines, political and religious bias, age, ect. These books do not cause any harm, but they do encourage a greater sense of community, and a happy community is a more efficient community. -- The Hybrid 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Keep - see The Hybrid above and tennisman. This isn't hurting anything, just leave people's userpages alone. - Bagel7 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The only problem is spamming to get signatures -this should be forbidden. Other than that, it does no harm and I agree with points like The Hybrid's. <<-armon->> 11:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at the upmost level, both Jimbo and Angela approve of autograph books. Why don't we? Apple•_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 12:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not misuse other people's comments. I do not support these on Wikipedia. Angela. 20:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jimbo Wales himself. They do not damage the encyclopedia in any way and make the atmosphere more friendly for newbies. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 14:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - Completly useless waste of space and bandwidth. User Discussion page can be used for the same thing. ^SyBer_WoLff 15:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - Wikipedia is about creating articles and not collecting signatures and pretty soon new users would join just to have their very own Autograph books and soon enough Wikipedia would become one of those social sites..NO WAY....(Delete Em All or Wikipedia Would be Doomed Forever)...--Cometstyles 16:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, handle individual instances of disruption, spam, or other harm individually. Userspace is granted broad latitude for a reason, so long as a userspace project is not actively harmful, I see no need to delete it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• VERY STRONG KEEP ALL I would like to know the major problems of these pages. Why would they be deleted? I think they are fine, unless it gets out of hand. A•N•N•Afoxlover sign here! 18:40, 9 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]

• Strong Delete - Wikipedia, although very social, is not a socialising website; it is an encyclopedia, and such pages don't benefit our articles: as an encyclopedia, that is unacceptable. The social argument that may be presented - it promotes inter-user relations. Our main goal is to provide a free encyclopedia; lists of ridiculously long signatures (which 99% of posts at signature books are) with links to even more books detract from this purpose and must be eradicated as incompatible with our project. anthonycfc ^[talk] 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Specific policy needs to be developed to halt these pages. --Masterpedia 19:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep These things show that they support you and you're edits! Whitout them, I would feel very depressed right now... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiddenhearts (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, while not really helpful in building an encyclopaedia, it's ultimately harmless. However, spamming for them is not exactly such a glorious notion and should be treated with appropriate wrath - spam for encyclopaedic goals is bad enough, and perhaps we need to encourage people to build encyclopaedia too rather than just spend time with this sort of stuff. One cannot relax all the time... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep but spamming userpages about them in any way doesn't fit WP policy, please stop that. Also... I'm not mad about all the fussy sigs I'm seeing these days. Gwen Gale 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This is a harmless concept, and - more importantly - it's in userspace. WP:USERPAGE says: The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant...community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed. This counts as a community-building activity, and is therefore allowed under the above policy. It's a very bad precedent to go ripping apart someone's userspace just because someone finds it juvenile - this kind of aggressive use of the MfD process is part of what often drives users away from Wikipedia. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Keep! -- DLL ^{.. T} 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Any rationale for this opinion? alphachimp 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Sheesh. 1ne 22:16, 9 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]

• Keep, seriously folks... this cycle of always looking for the next 'crusade' to launch against the 'evil community' for having messages in rectangles on their user pages, non-generic signatures, guest books, and whatever else has to stop. No, these pages do not have anything directly to do with building an encyclopedia. Frankly, neither do user pages. Or the entire 'featured' classification of content for that matter. Yet we allow those because they serve other purposes... namely, supporting a sense of community involvement and recognizing accomplishments. Just leave the people alone. It might be worthwhile to establish some sort of standard that users who spend little or no time on recognized 'encyclopedia building' issues should be gently guided towards 'Myspace' or the like, but these campaigns to Exterminate! (to quote the Daleks) the latest bugaboo are ridiculously disruptive and un-necessary. --CBD 22:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as they are harmless. But to make them seem less like social networking:

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]

• Strong keep, these kinds of things are important for building and strengthening the community, which we rely on to write the encyclopedia. Jimbo had it right on this one. Everyking 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Autograph books are friendly, they promote WikiLove amongst users, and they provide a sense of community. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Jimbo has choice words on this subject; all you have to do is read his quote inside a number of these pages. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've thaught about this for a few days now, and have a few thaughts on this.
  1. MFD is not the place to create or rewrite policies.
  2. WP:USERPAGE is NOT a policy, it is a guideline. Perhaps it needs to be "upgraded" to a policy, but see #1
  3. Per many of the above these pages alone seem fine, happy editors are more productive, and wikipedia is a community to some extent.

  Now for those who want to turn this in to a policy proposal:

  WP:SIG could be updated to advise against advertising these types of pages as links.

  WP:CANVASS could be updated to advise against using talk page advertising of these types of personal pages.

  WP:USERPAGE could be updated to address this as well.

  Notice all of those suggestions are about making changes to the way editors use the system on the pages regarding those usages, not in a deletion discussion.

Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but only per User:Xaosflux (above). Rklawton 02:47, 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]

• • Wikipedians do have fun --- on IRC, or using email, but not on-wiki. The fact that all of our on-wiki edits are stored for posterity, where off-the-cuff comments from years ago can come back to haunt you, means that Wikipedia itself will never be the place that people will want to informally communicate. --Interiot 04:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral/Comment OK, that was somewhat convicing. but the keep and delete reasons are reasonable so I change my mind to neutral.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 06:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Once upon a time it was encouraged for Wikipedians to get along and build an atmosphere conducive to building an encyclopedia- and then all of a sudden it became trolling for some reason. Missed that memo. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - the "not a socialising site" thing doesn't have to be turned into a fetish. Metamagician3000 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all as per Jimbo. --Merovingian ※ Talk 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep "Books", Speedy Delete "Prizes" - Ashamed I didn't find this early, the books per Jimbo, the prizes per WP:NOT --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 08:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and strongly censure editors who have nothing better to do than piss in other people's sandboxes. What does it matter to you if some guy has an autograph page? It does no harm. However, crusades against other people's fun do! Grace Note 09:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely and completely, totally and utterly devastating Delete. These userpages are worthless. How they promote community exactly? 10 people sticking their name on a user subpage results in... a user subpage with 10 users' names on it. This doesn't exactly bind the community together. In fact, it aggravates the community because frequently people who have autograph books pester people to sign them, hard-working people who would rather get on with writing than signing bloody autograoph books all day. When I look at the list of user pages nominated, I see many very young users who spend their time making excitable posts all over the Wikipedia namespace and who rarely actually do any editing in the main namespace (my apologies to the people who do not fit this description, you know who you are). These pages are not cool, they do not create any sense of community, they are a waste of time and should be deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All-No point to them, and just a few days ago, I saw a user spamming tons of user talk pages. That causes users to waste their time reading their "new messages", when they could be editing. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 13:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Though I agree that misuse of autograph books is bad, I do not believe that the books in general should be deleted. Captain panda In vino veritas 14:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (keep) The autograph books are no problem at all. Wikipedia should have a little bit of fun. The encyclopedia should be mostly serious, but what would Wikipedia be if all we were doing was blocking vandals, fighting with vandals, patrolling recent changes, writing articles, etc.? My suggestion is to warn users to stop any spamming of users' talk pages asking them to sign their autograph books, and ban the disruptive "SIGN HERE!!!" on users' signatures. Would this solve the problem? I placed this on the WP:SIG page. Many users have worked hard on their autograph pages, which do not deserve to be deleted. Jimbo Wales has said himself that autograph pages are absolutely fine. The autograph pages are no problem, but the spamming and disruptive signatures are. Keep the autograph pages, please! A•N•N•Afoxlover 14:38, 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]

• Delete. It's junk and is counterproductive to a nonprofit encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Myspace. - Gilliam 18:01, 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]

• Keep all. It's a community-building thing, and as someone pointed out above (this discussion is 61k of code by the way), it promotes a sense of bond between younger contributors. I have also signed a few of these books myself. On the other hand, massively asking people to sign a particular book (whether via links in the signature or per multitudes of comments on talk pages) smells spammy and is a pointless waste of the servers' time. Come on, a user page is like the t-shirt with a witty line you wear to work (depends on where one's working though). We're all trying to build an encyclopedia, that's clear, but it's also obvious that we're still people, not only at the end of the day, but throughout it. Let's be people. People wearing t-shirts with funny inscriptions. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not MySpace. Non-encyclopedic. Skult of Caro (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. I was the editor Jimbo reprimanded in the quote above. He knows what he's doing, I suppose, and it's pretty aggressive to delve into user space for MFD. We're not talking about enemies lists here - these are friendly lists. And if you're going to get rid of those ones, kick out User talk:Durova/Admin/How in heck did you find out about me? also. Durova^Charge! 22:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All. What harm is this doing to Wikipedia?

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]

• Weak keep in general, but delete those belonging to users not contributing to the encyclopedia. Spamming the pages (including in signatures) should be prevented. Otherwise, despite the fact I personally see them as pointless, these pages can only help build a community, which is A Good Thing. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see anything wrong with this? Builds a sense of community and doesn't "harm" the project in any way at all. per all the keeps above. --phenz^Talk 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most but Delete those by noncontributing users and users who spam talk pages looking for autographs. In moderation, these promote civility and community. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These pages help build the community spirit, encourage mutual acquaintance, which, in turn, facilitate collaboration. Owning these subpages is just as fine as having a list of friends on Wikipedia, which is clearly valid use of userspace. Not everyone's spamming, many owners of the books are efficient and valuable editors, not only active in "decorating their userspace" (to quote a false accusation above). Spamming should be banned, but that's a completely different issue. Autograph books, on the other hand, should be encouraged. S. Miyano 05:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All WP:NOT Myspace.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All (strong). All this pages are necessary for building a community spirit as said by Miyano. Your continuous attempts to delete people's subpages might scare them off from wikipedia and it will lost valued contributors. So please don't, and keep contributing instead of that. Thanks --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy no consensus - deletion is not supported by current policy, and it's been mentioned that a possible new policy is proposed. Open a new MfD when such a policy is decided on. --Random832 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a single, unified page where people can write ~~~~, save the page, and marvel at the beauty of their own signatures. Seriously, claiming these pages build "community spirit" reminds me of something out of an episode of The Office. I admonish the closing admin to use common sense when weighing the discussion here. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - don't forget User:Kzrulzuall/Signature. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE Begin the purge! — MichaelLinnear 03:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete All - Build community through collaborative editing, not childish, annoying, and spam-inviting autograph pages. The Behnam 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC) The Behnam 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC) The Behnam 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC) The Behnam 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC) The Behnam 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (oooh my signature! wanna build community?)[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]

• Keep all per Jimbo. No harm being done, and at least for some it makes this place more friendly. Kla'quot 07:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In Soviet Russia, Autographs Keep You!!. Is there any harm in leaving signatures on other Wikipedians' Userpages? Furthermore, these autograph pages have definitely helped nurture the Wikipedian community. I, for one, got to know more Wikipedians through signing autographs on other Wikipedians' Userpages; if you delete these Users' autograph pages, it'll do nothing but worsen the state we're in. Deleting them means that we'll be signing our own death warrants! -- Altiris Exeunt 08:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but change. Maybe instead of asking absolutely everyone for an autograph (I'm talking about that "Sign here!!!!") just ask the people who you really appreciate. Let them know that you appreciate what they've done and so want an autograph as a memento. Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 08:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also they're useful in testing signatures. Wikipedians need their fun too. Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 08:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Signatures can easily be tested in a sandbox or by simply using the "Show preview" button. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides, it didn't help your signature—it's completely unreadable. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, Mr. Wales left a comment here! If he supports it, then this MfD is no longer relevant. Mr. Sanger has left Wikipedia, so only he knows what an ideal wiki is. Given his comment, he may want these autograph books to be kept. -- Altiris Exeunt 09:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment's by Jimbo do not make discussions irrelevant. --16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, too Esperanza-ish. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't help in building the encyclopedia. >Radiant< 13:48, 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]

• Comment! Comment! Comment! Jimbo Wales has said that autograph pages build a spirit of friendliness. Jimbo would like to keep them. And I was wondering, who started the autograph pages thing, anyway? Anyway, Jimbo Wales would like to keep them. A•N•N•Afoxlover 14:04, 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]

• Delete. The WWJD line doesn't convince me at all, don't help in building an encyclopedia. Too Esperanza-ish indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:24, 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]

• Keep. Harmless frivolity, not in main encyclopedia space. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Try getting a Myspace page, they are free! Tinus 20:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Tinus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the fact there was much ado about nothing over these on AN/I more or less tells me that it's not really helping the encyclopedia. Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is about editing articles: not collecting autographs. Use MySpace or some other site for it instead. RobJ1981 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It mostly just bothers me when people actively solicit autographs. A small link on a user page is fine, but links in signatures or requesting autographs on talk pages is distracting and seems to juvenilize the work we put in to Wikipedia. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree with that. Recently I noticed a talk page post just asking for an autograph. I had never even talked to the person before or anything. Things like autograph books are making Wikipedia seem like a chat site (something it isn't). RobJ1981 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Spamming people's talk-pages should get you blocked, as should advertising in your signature. However, if a user asks people that they have a relation with to sign their little books, that's not really a big problem, is it? Keep the books, but warn about future disruption, and keep the users on a short leash. Oskar 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An anonymous editor signs on your "signature" page of nameless names, why? (one will say; "not all editors are anonymous.") I just to dont see how this helps in creating and/or editing articles. I clearly see the argument "signature" pages are a harmless elementary way of having fun, building community, and harboring benevolence. Why would an earnest editor put there signature on such silliness? --Masterpedia 22:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. One main annoyance seems to be references to these in signatures, which are themselves the cause of many a dispute. I still suggest that signatures are best left in a simple/standard format, and that aesthetic personalization is best restricted to one's userpage (or one's monobook css file...). That would solve this, and many other problems. --Quiddity 22:51, 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.