Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stub Makers




 * 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 Killiondude (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Stub Makers
Ancient page that doesn't do any good by telling stub makers that they should somehow be courteous with their edit summaries. Most of these users are inactive and this isn't really a Wikiproject. GrooveDog &bull; i'm groovy. 01:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a bunch of now-inactive users who got together to do God knows what. Nothing worth keeping here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good idea.  Was originally, is now.   Is an active page, listing active users, who do something definitely in the interest of the project.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see more than a couple active users. Also, may I ask what "definately" means? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed typo. I blame microsoft.
 * As long as there are a couple of active users, live and let live. Otherwise tag as historical.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or tag historical - was once useful for its intended purpose. It was created when unregistered editors could start new articles, probably so that new page patrollers of the time could more easily separate the wheat from the chaff by checking edit summaries. Informative edit summaries are always a good idea. There's no reason to delete the history of this page, as it contains nothing objectionable, so either keep it, tag it as historical, or move it to the historical archive. Graham 87 06:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason for deletion. Two new editors in it. Article does not say "be courteous" -- indeed it says to make sure the stub has references.  Collect (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete cruft which serves no purpose or the good of the project. Verbal chat  18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Historicize Seems not destructive to the project, just inactive. --Blargh29 (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and leave as active. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2009 (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.