Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TomasBat/Universal Autographs

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;

“ You keep asking how they 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. --Jimbo Wales 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC) ”

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)