Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TomasBat/Universal 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 Delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:TomasBat/Universal Autographs

I'm sure this deletion will be heavily contested--it'll probably fail. However, I don't see the need for this page. It further encourages autograph book pages, adding them into signatures, asking for autographs, etc. I admit I was among the first to have an autograph book (and I still have it), but I didn't intend it to be this way. It seems more of a "make my collection bigger" thing now: this page proves that. I find having a page transcluded onto an autograph page to be wholly unnecessary, and when this it's this large, a bit over-the-top. I apologize my explanation isn't very good, but I've never been very good at that. ;-) · AndonicO ^Talk 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Undecided: Your right AO it has become an, as you say, "make my collection bigger thing". But, at the moment I'm not quite sure where to go with the Universal Autographs. I guess it also defeats to purpose of personally signing someones autograph book.--♠Dspradau♠ 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Useful good thing. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it useful? What purpose does it serve? · AndonicO ^Talk 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It helps to find other autograph books and as Jimbo Wales has said, they are a good thing.Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 06:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete - In a sense, I agree with AO, it does kinda defeat the purpose of an autograph book... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete AO makes a good point, though I don't think this page would cause much of a/any serious problem if kept; but still, if there are concerns with it, then just delete it. If result ends up being delete, then I ask the closing admin to please subst all the transclusions before the deletion. ♠TomasBat 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's in your userspace, tag it with {{db-userreq}}. Alpta 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but I'm not sure if all the users who are transcluding this page to their autograph books would want it to be deleted; so I'll leave it for the standard process for now... ♠TomasBat 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • We can "subst" the ones on user pages, so they keep them. · AndonicO ^Talk 23:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, but they wouldn't update... Subst just right before deletion if consensus ends up being "delete". ♠TomasBat 01:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I've notified everyone with the template of this discussion. · AndonicO ^Talk 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Doesn't seem to be using an inordinate amount of disk space. I see signature pages (and other such "fun" things) as tools for collaboration. It helps people get to know each other through trivial things. I think it serves more of a purpose than a detriment (in fact, I can't see a detriment.) .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Even Jimbo himself said Signature books are good;

Because of this I think it should be kept. I only feel pages like this should be deleted if it stops editors from making "proper edits". By this I mean Wikipedians who spend all day just signing autograph books and editing their own pages. — jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 12:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, Esperanza was deleted... WP:JIMBOSAID. Anyway, my point isn't that we should delete all autograph pages, I'm against that too. However, I don't see a point for this page, except that it's meant to make autograph books larger--and without cooperation and friendliness at that. If this isn't what this page is for, I must be missing something. · AndonicO ^Talk 13:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Alpta 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I initially intended to support keeping them when I went to this MfD, but after some consideration, I have decided that one autograph book really is enough and we don't need to have two of them in one userpage. Captain panda 03:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is no point in having two signature lists where names will be repeated let alone one. Wikipedia is better off without it. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jackrm. - Bagel7^T's 04:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are no reasons to delete it. It might not serve an encyclopedic purpose but it serves to encourage interaction between contributors and that can only be a good thing. Marco Alfarrobinha {chat}_{contributions} 08:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Unuseful bad thing. And who cares what Jimbo said about it, as long as it isn't a policy Jimbo isn't a God-King... :/ Majorly (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I can see the issues, and like autograph books, and think DaGizza is right, but unfortunately I do not see any reason why we should not just delete all autograph books. Laleena 11:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, silly and not funny. >Radiant< 11:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't help build an encyclopedia Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not hurtful but not very useful. It was an interesting idea to start with, and it's nice to know the Jimbo Wales is in favor of the concept. However it is unnecessary and (to some extent) defeats the purpose of signing people's autograph books.

delete per above. Thanks AO for telling me about this. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - While I don't mind autograph pages, the idea of transcluding them arbitrarily to each other's lists seems like a rather bad idea. It would seem to be similar to editing other's comments, since the "signatures" will end up on pages that the authors never intended. - jc37 22:38, 19 September 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.