Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/September/8

Podcasting-stub / redlink

 * 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 upmerge

Potentially speediable as re-creation of deleted stub type, but technology moves on and there may be more use for this now. Personally, it still looks deletable to me, given the seemingly small number of stubs on podcasting (and the fact that the small handful of articles marked with this could be easily classified with other existing templates) but I've brought it here to see how others feel. Grutness...wha?  03:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd probably be inclined to upmerge. Would a scope such as  be numerically viable?  Alai 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to per Alai. Her Pegship  (tis herself)  16:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would only say that Podcasting is a rising field and there would be far more articles on future than they are now. Please retain if possible. Let Wikipedia be more about creation than deletion (No offense, but I had noticed this more than often. Once one of my articles was marked for deletion withing seconds I created it. Even creating an article and saving it takes few minutes how can anybody expect to have a flawless article created in such a short time? But I guess most editors are interested in displaying their speed than their accuracy.) --Bebaak 02:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that stub types are created when there are enough existing articles on a subject, not as a hedge against future articles. Note too that upmerging would allow for the re-creation (or in this case, just the creation) of a separate category when there is judged to be enough articles using it. As for being about creation rather than deletion, a large part of the purpose of the stub-sorting project is to deal with the abundant creation of new articles - there have been the best part of a million added in the last year. Adding articles is frequent and common practice. Templates and categories, however, need to have slightly stricter control since they deal with many articles, and this is especially true with stub templates and categories, which we try to keep in some logical pattern and usage practice. Grutness...wha?  00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (absent-minded edit conflict) Can we please keep this on topic? Firstly, upmerger keeps the template, so if it does grow dramatically (as it shows no signs of doing, since the last deletion);  secondly, given the redlink category, and tiny current size, this is far from useful as it stands, so clearly action of some sort is strongly indicated.  Alai 01:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did what seemed right to me, I leave the decision to you. Thanks. --Bebaak 02:40, 10 September 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.