Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Guestbooks

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. HurricaneFan 25 14:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guestbooks

Click [show] to see all pages affected

Note: MfD templates are currently being posted on associated pages.

This is probably going to be a drama-fest, so I'm summarizing this as well as I can. For those of you who don't know what a guestbook is, they are basically a collection of friendly comments an signatures. Even Jimbo has one.

WP:NOTMYSPACE states "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." It also explicitly states "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." Guestbooks have no positive impact on "working on the encyclopedia" — they are basically purely for collecting signatures. WP:UP#GAMES says "Games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia"" are not constructive for Wikipedia. I've also seen some users who simply just sign, sign, sign guestbooks and ask them to sign theirs, which in my opinion, is a reason to delete all these guestbooks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; to quote the Webster Dictionary, an encyclopedia is "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge..." and guestbooks do nothing to do that. Tl;dr? Guestbooks are pointless MySpacey pages.

Jimbo himself said, "You keep asking how they [autograph pages] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to WP:EA. 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." I contest that statement.

HurricaneFan 25 21:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no problem having a collection of user signatures, it would be different if signatures were from non-users. How does how long you've been on Wikipedia, that you are subscribed to the signpost, how many times your page has been vandalized, or the barnstars you've received "present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia"? The degree to what non-relevant stuff there is, is more important then having/not having...most of us have non-relevant stuff on our userpages. CTJF83 22:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, guestbooks have been something on the site for more than a good five years. I see no issue keeping track of who has or hasn't spent a little time seeing who you are and coming across your edits on this site in the same way barnstars are awarded. • GunMetal Angel 22:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I didn't know these things existed. Clearly we shouldn't encourage people towards social networking and away from the encyclopedia, so it would be a bad precedent to approve guestbooks through this Mfd. They could also be used as a resource for canvassing. --Klein zach 22:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone notify all the users above about the MfD using AWB or something? Thanks. HurricaneFan Alt ≈≈ (bad revert?) 22:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Signature pages do nothing to hinder work on the encyclopedia unlike games and secret pages, which are time consuming. They might actually help by promoting communication between editors. These users who "just sign, sign, sign guestbooks and ask them to sign theirs", will they be more likely to do actual work on the encyclopedia if signature pages are forbidden? Of course not. So why punish constructive guestbook owners on account of people who aren't going to edit the encyclopedia anyway? It makes no sense. I'd be less likely to edit this encyclopedia if I thought a bunch of self-appointed user space cops were poking around my user page looking for unharmful silliness to ban. Reyk _YO! 23:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't have one, nor do I care for them, but I see no harm in allowing them to exist. The fact that Wikipedia is not a "social networking site" doesn't detract from the fact that we are social animals, and some are spurred in productivity by a sense of camaraderie. bd2412 T 23:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It helps users meet another, which may possibly help against disputes. Also, I don't see that much of a difference from the humourous things located on some pages. Thats not encyclopedic. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reyk said it better than I ever could (and I did feel like I saw a user space cop today, especially when no talkpage notification was given of the MfD). — KV5 • Talk • 00:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was, well, there were 200 and I didn't have the mind to go post tp notifications after tagging 200+ pages. HurricaneFan 25 00:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you've got the tenacity to individually nominate 200+ pages for deletion, but the common courtesy of informing the authors was too much for you. Interesting. Reyk _YO! 00:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These have been nominated several times for deletion and have failed each time. -down load ׀ talk 00:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless, not distracting anyone from working. JORGENEV 00:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A lot of times, what we do here can feel nameless and isolated; as if we're lone editors whiling away the hours, hammering at a slab of stone we call an encyclopedia. In editing, the only times we communicate with other editors are times like here to debate deletion, or on discussion pages to argue consensus. Things like guestbooks (and barnstars) allow us a respite, of sorts, from the monotonous "job" of this, to just say "Hi", or what have you, without having it get lost in the muck and mire of--or interfering with--regular editing. My guestbook has not been signed in I am not sure how long, but it is there; and I do not see a compelling reason that it should not be. Chickenmonkey 01:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In June 2011, a MediaWiki extension allowing editors to add among other things, cups of tea, cheeseburgers, and various pictures of cats to user correspondence pages was installed on the English Wikipedia by Wikimedia Foundation Developers on the basis that positive/cordial interaction between editors encourages good editing. Need I say any more? WilliamH (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The meer existence and success of this project, the fact that WE are having this discussion, the fact that there is a WE at all, the fact that there is a COMMUNITY in the first place is all prima facie evidence that this project is a social experience and all those trying to stop that need to stop stroking their own egos with self importance. This project is based on social interactions. We need them. Just drop it already. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jimbo actually said: "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." I believe he seems to be contradicting his own statement in the implementation of WP:NOTMYSPACE. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 03:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Close this and give the nom the trout.--Adam in MO Talk 04:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This entire MFD borders on disruption.--Adam in MO Talk 04:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me how this MFD borders on disruption. It's a good faith nomination from a good faith editor, clearly not disruptive. Secret ^account 05:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass nominating user pages when this has been discussed before and being to lazy to notify the involved users is clearly disruptive. I have no doubt this was made in good faith it is just extremely poorly executed.--Adam in MO Talk 05:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Secret, consensuses can change on Wikipedia, and the nominator wanted to inform the people with guestbooks using AWB. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

I am not concerned with the nom's motivations, on their actions. Nominating a mass of article for deletion out of userspace and not notifying the user's is disruptive. You, nor anyone else has yet to dispute my conclusion. This MFD should be closed on the notification error alone.--Adam in MO Talk 05:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to nothing about whether the nom was disruptive or not; just let this discussion close without any harm done.Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 05:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed My comments have been struck.--Adam in MO Talk 05:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reyk. 28bytes (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just close this nomination and renominate it on a case for case basis. I think I closed a similar MFD of mass nominations of guestbook pages a several years back as that was the consensus that was formed. I remembered the consensus for these guestbooks was based on the fact that they are harmless, and builds user interaction (which I don't know how) and thus should be kept, except for ones of editors who clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. This nomination is in good faith, just a bit mislead and nothing should be held against the user. I recommend a speedy close or withdrawal. Thanks Secret ^account 05:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guestbooks are completely harmless. This will encourage the Wikipedians to communicate more. Solar Police►Talk 07:44, 18 November 2011 (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.