Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/February/15

FinalFantasy-stub

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus

As suggested by SMimas during the discussion on DragonQuest-stub (below). This has been around for a long time - nearly two years! - but has only gained 15 stubs in that time. The parent stub cat it feeds into has only about 45 stubs, so doesn't need splitting. There's no logical reason why we have this - it doesn't help stub sorters or editors. Delete. Grutness...wha?  05:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's upmerged, so why is size any real concern? Mind you, the fed-into category is itself rather small...  but you haven't nominated that.  Alai 11:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't - but if the category is small enough not to need splitting, then having two separate templates feeding into seems like overkill. it is also being used as a precedent for a third template to feed into this small category. A 40-stub category is borderline, but having three templates for it (and who knows how many others may suddenly appear?) is definitely not necessary. Id it was close enough to splitting size that a second template made sense, then fine - but it clearly isn't. Grutness...wha?  23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I recall now: there's a wikiproject, so 40-odd is actually fine. I'm more concerned about setting precedents the other way.  If we start deleting templates that are quarter-way (or indeed halfway) towards viability as fully-fledged types, on what basis do we justify having these in other cases?  People will complain we're "playing favourites".  Alai 13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, as a member of WP:FF, I personally don't care if the stub type is deleted (SquareEnix-stub seems to work well enough right now), but I'd like to note that the template was much more populous once upon a time. Maybe WP:FF is just that good and de-stubbified all those articles? :) Axem Titanium 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If only all WikiProjects were so conscientious ;) Grutness...wha?  00:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.