Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ANNAfoxlover/Autographs

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.

The result of the debate was keep gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the overturning of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books, I am listing this single autograph book up for deletion. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, which is what this autograph book violates. It promotes the violation of WP:SIG, and it violates WP:USER as it's unencyclopedic material. On top of this, ANNAfoxlover has a link to this subpage in her signature, spamming this page and requesting that people sign it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete, in spite of Jimbo's comments (which are not in themselves policy). I don't really have any problem with autograph books in themselves anymore, but this is ridiculous. This isn't so much an autograph book as it is a social networking page, and Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It also does violate WP:USER as unencyclopedic material and by promoting discussion unrelated to encyclopedia-building. There are also problems with canvassing here (after all, she does promote this in her signature, and it gets posted everywhere she signs). --Coredesat 06:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I don't see the harm in having this page, since the user appears to be a productive one. I have no time for social pages of unproductive users. I also don't see a problem with the signature, which appears to have been toned down from an earlier version.-gadfium 06:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Coredesat--$UIT 06:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I dont see a problem with Autograph books, I personally have one, they are not much of a problem.Tellyaddict 10:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep While this would be clearly unacceptable for a user who makes little mainspace contributions, it appears that this user has made quite a few contributions to the mainspace, and therefore I don't think it's causing any harm. -Panser Born- (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Granted this is not a MySpace or AIM but the user IS keeping up in mainspace and autograph books are nice to meet other wikipedians and to get help in editing so I say keep WikiMan53 (talk) (click here) 13:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Week Keep if... the user takes the yellow banner off her talk page. She seems to be productive now and not sig-crazy. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 14:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and speedy close Jimbo is the final authority, as established here by the ArbCom. If Jimbo says it no one should really run counter with it. Also this user is an established user, which should be given more leeway. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This cannot be speedily kept because there are arguments to delete. Also, I just mentioned that Jimbo's word is not policy (he himself says as much!). The user in question is one who has been warned quite a few times for various things, and this is more than just an autograph book. --Coredesat 19:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per my rationale in all previous MfDs on people's userspace. ANNAfoxlover is a hardworking contributor with well over 2,000 edits on Wikipedia. There is nothing to be gained by deleting her fun page, which is doing no one any harm. This recent spate of MfDs on user subpages is simply serving to drive more and more users away from Wikipedia, and has to be stopped. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I'm aware that Anna has been spamming, and the Autograph Book resembles that of social networking, but Anna has been contributing greatly to this encyclopedia. Perhaps I would reconsider if mostly all of her edits were to her book. Tohru Honda13 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I like the autograph books and I want Wikipedians to have their autograph books because they can be friends with other Wikipedians, but this is not MySpace(R). Jet123 ^{~~My talk page~~} 23:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This user has had problems in the past, but she has recovered nicely, with many mainspace contribs. We must draw a line in the sand somewhere, and say, "No, this is a well-established user, and we need to give her some leeway in her userspace." Abeg92contribs 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any evidence the book is being used for social networking, rather it promotes cameraderie among editors (which is highly beneficial considering well-known general problems with edit-warring, lack of WP:AGF, etc.) If the user in question has been spamming then it is safe to assume it wasn't maliciously. If the link to the book in the signature is a serious problem then politely requesting its removal would be more conducive to a friendly, productive atmosphere. Suriel1981 03:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I fail to see how this particular autograph book strives for any more or any less social networking than other autograph books. If you'd like her to remove the link to it from her sig, tell her. –Pomte 12:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I would also like to reprimand the nominator for this nomination. It's a very good way of driving a valued contributor away from the site. MfDs for autograph books en masse are one thing, but, with all due respect to Ryulong, this simply seems like unfair treatment of one particular user. Besides, with all due respect, I don't think the creator of User:Ryulong/Penguin Cabal should be commenting on the utility of anyone else's subpages. (Although admittedly that shouldn't influence anyone's !vote, as it has no direct bearing on this matter.) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The only difference between an autograph book and his penguin cabal is that one is filled with humans, while the other one are full of penguins. :-) Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And humans are more beneficial to Wikipedia than penguins. :) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actively seeking out people to work on that page. There is solely a link on my user page and my user talk in the form of the penguin itself. I do not have a secret link to that page in my signature.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; as I said earlier, I wasn't intending my mention of the Penguin Cabal to influence anyone's vote, as it has no direct bearing on the validity of this MfD. Wooyi and I used smiles to clarify that our comments were intended as humorous. However, my reprimand for this MfD still stands. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Absolutely nothing wrong with autograph books. -- Ekjon Lok 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. User seems to be actually doing good contributions to the encyclopedia, so it probably isn't harming anything. Promotion of the page should be toned town considerably, however. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Really, now. We already noted autograph books are basically harmless, and this is not worse than your average example. The only potential issue is the sig link, and that has absolutely no relevance whatsoever on whether the link target should be deleted - basically, MfD is the wrong venue for that, you need to come to amicable agreement with the user through discussion with the user, or other venues. (Frankly, I'd say bringing User: stuff to XfD to enforce user conduct is generally not a good idea if we're talking of an otherwise active contributor, and saying this article fails user space/encyclopedia building rules even after the sig book MfD sounds an awful lot like grasping for excuses.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep See:User:KeybladeSephi/autograph book warning

  Jimbo is not the final word on anything.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  I realize that but many people have them and do look at what he said WikiMan53 (talk) (click here) make a sig! 15:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: These seem to not be a problem, but get in the way of writing an encyclopædia per users asking other users to sign their's and not doing any article-writing.  ~Steptrip 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. They're kind of annoying and I certainly don't want one, but it's relevant to Wikipedia, user pages are not intended to be encyclopedic, and s/he is spending more time on actual articles than personal space. -- LeCour^T:C 01:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no problem with these signature books. But request that talk page spamming stop. -Mschel 23:02, 10 April 2007 (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.