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]