Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack/ABs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nom defaulting to Keep. --Veritas (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jack/ABs

I believe lists of autograph/guest books are discouraged, per

• Keep - I don't think that this qualifies for deletion under WP:MYSPACE - if it did, you'd need to list every individual autograph book on said list, and many, many other user sub pages. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per The Haunted Angel. I might consider otherwise if you find that page you've talked about.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The usual adduction in discussions about autograph books is Jimbo's December 2006 observation on the matter: "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". Of course, Jimbo's pronouncement, either as a descriptive or as a prescriptive (in fact, as someone who disagrees with Jimbo on most things, I can hardly believe I'm quoting him), is
  WP:EM (I'm beating Walton to referencing it), etc., they need not be deleted. Joe 03:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Okay, I confess, I'm illiterate (or, at least, lazy). Having not visited the nominated page and having somehow missed the third and fourth words of the nominator's statement, I was under the impression that the page was an autograph book; AndonicO's comment below, though, led me to, you know, read that which we're discussing, and so I'll withdraw my !vote pending further consideration.
• Comment I thought the page where these lists I mentioned were discussed was the
  AndonicO ^Hail! 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I wonder how many such lists exist. I don't imagine that one centralized list, whatever the merits of autograph books and the "promotion" thereof, should be problematic, but I don't know that more than one would be at all helpful (to be sure, I'd probably, consistent with my longstanding
    EMish views, support keeping all lists that aggregate links to signature books, but I expect that there would be some support for the deletion of any redundant lists). Joe 03:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Not sure how many there are... there is a category, however,
      AndonicO ^Hail! 03:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Comment. Originally, this was just for personal use, but, I decided it would be nice to let anyone use it. Basically, all that's happening here is you're saying this page should be deleted simply because I shared it. Great. Jack?! 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. This whole thing seems rather ridiculous - it's not as if you're blogging what you did today at school or something stupid - delete this, and every autograph book also needs deleting, and as it is said above, the last MfD resulted in them staying. If you delete this, where do you draw the line on what stays and what does not on people's user pages? I think this whole MfD is unnecessary - like throwing rocks at a bee hive. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The new rule seems to be 'you can make your own subpages, but share it and it shall be deleted!'. Jack?! 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and I think AndonicO should stop nominating user subpages. There's an encyclopedia that needs improving.
  ^Talk 21:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep per Haunted Angel --Veritas (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whether or not there's an issue with autograph pages isn't really relevant. This page is merely an index to track them. If the community were to decide in the future that autograph pages were undesirable, this page would actually be useful in finding them. I think it can serve a good purpose, regardless of whether autograph pages are judged as malevolent or benign. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Okay then, since everyone seems to disagree, I'll withdraw this nomination. ·
  AndonicO ^Hail! 11:28, 4 March 2008 (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.