Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Facebook directory

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 Keep. Consensus is simply that this page improves the aura of the Wikipedian community. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook directory
An apparently abandoned Wikipedia social networking experiment. Kelly hi! 08:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Disagree with nom. Recently added my pic, so not really abandoned.  This page isn't so much a "social networking experiment", but what its title states, a directory of Wikipedians faces. As for purpose, it fosters a feeling of community among pseudonymous editors.  The Interior (Talk) 08:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I fail to see the rationale behind the proposed deletion. It has many faces, so can hardly be considered abandoned.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep anyone want to find some links to the last time this was an issue? I remember it getting a lot of attention and there being quite a discussion on the matter. If I recall correctly, we kept this because most of the deletion-support was based on comparing this to Facebook rather than simply a facebook (directory). A facebook directory itself is not really an issue. However, if someone makes a Wikipedia Farmville I swear I'm going to lose it. -- Ned Scott 09:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Page has survived two previous deletion discussions - a speedy keep and a no consensus. The Interior (Talk) 09:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - no, not really abandoned IMO.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil HI AGAIN 10:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The edit history shows the page is not abandoned. The page and its talk show that it isn't a social networking experiment (as Ned Scott points out, this is a facebook (directory) not Facebook). There are no other reasons given in the nomination, and as it violates no policy that I'm aware of there is no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not abandoned and not a networking experiment. It's just a bunch of pictures. Garion96 (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. Also, virtually all of the pictures in it should not be on Wikipedia. They should be moved to Wikimedia Commons if kept at all. Per that same page, Wikipedia is not a file storage area. Mhiji 12:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean Jimbo should not put his photo on his userpage either? ;-) This is just a bunch of pictures; it has little 'social-networkingness', IMO. Jimbo 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.' Isn't that what this page is doing? About Commons: Most, if not all, of the pictures should already be at the commons (I didn't really check; it's just an assumption, since there's no way you could have a FUR for them.) If you mean a similar page in Commons, this would not be suitable because this is a page for Wikipedian faces, not Commons users (I don't know what they're called).  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil HI AGAIN 12:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean having a similar page in Commons. The picture at User:Jimbo Wales is different because it's used in an article anyway, so it's fine that it's there and can be linked to from wherever is necessary, including his user page if he likes, as it doesn't involve any more space being used on the server (and it's not on the page we are discussing anyway). I had a quick look through and quite a few of the pictures are on WP not Commons. They should be moved over then (unless they are used on articles too), no matter what the outcome of this is. Mhiji 12:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then they should be moved there, possibly with the aid of Commons Helper. Anyway, if you believe that uploading your picture to WP and dumping it into a 'facebook' page is against WP:NOTFACEBOOK, Jimbo's photo should only be used in the mainspace as well, or this means notable users have more privileges than non-notable users, IMO.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil HI AGAIN 13:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not Facebook. We have user pages that people may customize and add photos of themselves to pretty much as they wish. A special page of photos of people is not a useful tool for an encyclopedia, it's a waste of space. Folks should do their social networking on a social networking site. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is not social networking, but a gallery of wikipedian's pictures, which can help build the community.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 13:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How can this help build the community? If we have pages like this which we are maintaining and updating, it's just wasting time (and resources) which could be used to actually build the encyclopedia. That is after all what Wikipedia is all about... This has no encylcopedic value or potential to increase productivity. Mhiji 14:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe WP:DOF may better explain this.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 14:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A bunch of photos doesn't help build the community. Editing articles and participating in talk page discussions does. So does joining a Wikiproject, or welcoming a new editor, or patrolling newpages to help N00bs with their first article. This page of photos is just Myspace vainglory. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple points - is this page "Social media"? Our page defines SM as "Social media are media for social interaction".  This page is not used for social interaction.  It is more analogous to those members photos you see on the wall at a Lions Club or many other volunteer organisations.  As to the point that we should all be doing something else, I believe most of us are.  I have spent (wasted) a very small amount of time on this page, but was indeed filled with a sense of community after seeing some of the faces of my fellow volunteers.  By the above rationale, we should not even have user pages, which actually do become examples of "Myspace vainglory" quite often.  The Interior (Talk) 19:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just looked through the links to the previous discussions which you provided and most keep votes were just WP:ILIKEIT or WP:NOHARM. Not particularly good arguments... Most of the other votes above are WP:JUSTAVOTE plus saying that the nom was incorrect because it's not abandoned. This is also a way for users to get around the rules and upload pictures of themselves onto Wikipedia (as WP:NOT states that files are OK if they're used on article or project pages) that would otherwise be deleted (if they were used on user pages). This should not be allowed to happen... The photos on this page should not be allowed to exist just because they are used on a project page. As was suggested at the last MfD, a category could be used instead. In fact we already have one, Category:Wikipedians with pictures. If users want to have photos of themselves on WP (I personally think it shouldn't be allowed since WP is not a file storage area - this uses unnecessary resources (and hence money) - but there's no policy against it at the moment) and want a place to look at other user's photos, then the pictures on this page could be added to the user's userpage if not already (as long as they are on Commons and not WP) and then the user can add that category to their user page if they wish. This category could be linked to at places which currently link to WP:FB, e.g. Wikipedians. Also, note the speedy keep should not have happened - it was closed without good reason and overturned at DRV so not relevant. And also the other discussion was compromised due to canvassing and hence very biased. I agree a lot of user pages should be scrapped - a lot are simply "Myspace vainglory" - but they can be useful tools in improving productivity if used correctly. Also, per the previous discussion, this also violates WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTLINK and WP:SOAP. Wikipedia should not be used for self promotion - that's exactly what this page is for. I think WP:NOTLINK is particularly relevant - Wikipedia is not a "mere collections of photographs or media files with no text" and "if you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context". I also feel that having this page encourages users to add photographs of themselves to the site. I don't think we shouldn't encourage that (again as it uses unnecessary resources (and money)) and also new users are likely to be unfamiliar with the privacy issues involved. I realise it is down to individual users to make there own decisions regarding this (and it should be) but considering the policies and guidelines discourage it, we shouldn't have a page which encourages this (I know it doesn't explicitly say "please add your photo too", but it's implied just by the nature of what it is). Mhiji 00:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedians with pictures is a lot less convenient that WP:FACEBOOK. The two, in fact, serve different purposes: one simply lists users with pictures, while the other is a gallery of Wikipedian's pictures. If you would like to know what other users look like, would you look through a category, and open every single userpage one by one, with scrolling and uncollapsing in every page? Probably not. About the speedy keep: The closing admin has retired, but I didn't know about speedy keeps then. Anyway, AFAIK speedy keeps, unlike CSDs, are done according to common practice rather than a fixed, unchangeable set of rules.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 06:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mhiji, you make some strong policy arguments, but I feel you are looking at this from a purely utilitarian perspective. The Wikimedia Foundation does expend some of its resources (see the Wikpedia 10 celebrations currently ongoing) to maintain community involvement.  This page can also be seen as a net benefit to the community.  I don't believe anyone is using it for self-promotion, these photos are still only linked to a username, not a real-life identity.  If we take the position that volunteers are here only to work, not to engage in any sort of online community, then we will lose many valuable contributors.  I admire the nose-to-grindstone ethic, but we are human beings here, and humans need a bit of "humanness" in their workplace if they are to be productive.  The Interior (Talk) 09:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Completely project related.  Supportive of a collaborative community of editors.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Collect below. "Facebook" is a bad name.  It is misleading, confusing, and is someone elses trademark.  Images of Wikipedians would be a far better title.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is fine, except that "Facebook" being a trademark does not prohibit unrelated uses of the word (such as in a "facebook directory") any more than "Apple" being a trademark prevents the sale of fruit, nor "ITN" being a trademark of a news organisation prevents us having WP:ITN link to our "In the news" page. Your suggested name "Images of Wikipedians" was explicitly rejected in a very recent consensus, so I don't think there is any chance of that being accepted. Regarding the confusing aspect, myself and others have already expressed the reasons why we believe it is not - indeed many of those rejecting "Images of Wikipedians" in the page move discussion expressed this as a reason against a change (although I have not cross-referenced participants in that discussion with participants in this). Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that we should avoid expansive use of words/names/strings that were introduced to the world as a trademark.
 * Where was this recent Page Move consensus to not move to Images of Wikipedians? If it is worth referring, it is worth linking
 * Here you go, SmokeyJoe. Wikipedia talk:Facebook directory The Interior (Talk) 02:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hah, so "facebook" was not invented by the net phenomenon, but originated as an academic directory of pictures of faces.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed so, it was literally a "book of faces". AIUI the original concept behind Facebook was to produce an electronic version with the added features of links to profiles and interaction. Thryduulf (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, a problem with the current title is not a reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that a problem with the current title is not a reason to delete (indeed my opinion is this should be kept), but I have to point out that the word "facebook" was introduced to the world as a trademark - see for example from 1988, and  which refers to the "Yale freshman facebook of 1929". Thryduulf (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Though I have strong doubts about using the name "Facebook", which is a matter for its talk page, there is no doubt that WP does have some social community aspects. Collect (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently there's already been a recent discussion about the name.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 15:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The page was moved from Facebook to Facebook directory in November 2010 following a WP:RM discussion that opposed the originally proposed Images of Wikipedians. Given the recency of this move, I don't think there will be much appetite for changing the name again at the present time. There was a previous discussion in December 2008 which references a discussion elsewhere from July that year, both of which concluded that there was probably not any problems with our using the word "Facebook" as we were (and are) using it in the traditional sense, not in any trademarks or service marks, and not in a way that would likely be confused with the social networking that Facebook, Inc own and operate. In the 2008 discussions it was suggested that a renaming would make this clearer, and the 2010 page move would appear to have done exactly that. So I don't think you have any need to be concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think I remember this: if it's the project I'm thinking of, it's been around for a long time, though I seem to remember it being moved at one point to Images of Wikipedians, which now seems to redirect here. Obviously the name is inappropriate, but the content isn't: as a rule, I've always felt that we should be fairly relaxed about people doing social-networky-type stuff in the WP namespace, as long as it doesn't spill over into the actual encyclopedia. Wikipedia is, after all, a community, and stuff that builds community cohesion (and doesn't cause any harm to the project) is fine by me. WaltonOne 12:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The page was (briefly) at Images of Wikipedians but this was reverted as the move was made without discussion, let alone consensus. The current name is not "obviously" inappropriate as the various discussions linked on this page and on the talk page detail. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nice to have a gallery of images of some of our editors.  Dough 48  72  03:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Longstanding page that does no harm and encourages community cohesion. And I don't know where the nom got the idea that this was "abandoned". -- &oelig; &trade; 06:17, 21 January 2011 (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.