Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/October/27

KamenRider-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 delete (again)

Yes, this was nominated less than a month ago - the decision then was "delete", but this has been undeleted on the grounds that the creator of the stub type was never notified of the deletion process and therefore was unable to put his side of the argument. As such, this is a procedural re-listing. For my part, however, I have to say that this still does not look like a useful split - gived the small number of articles that were using this at the time of deletion (despite the fact that it had been in use for over a year), it does not appear to be a particularly useful split - delete. Grutness...wha?  23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note also that it was nominated in slightly different form in April last year. Decision then was to rename - no dcecision was made on the category, despite the majority of comments seeming to favour upmerging unless the category got to threshold (which it never seems to have). Grutness...wha?  00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that I thoroughly have time to discuss this, I think this should be kept. The whole stub category process was entirely unnecessary when I originally created this grouping a year and a half ago. I understand that the only people who will be commenting here, other than me, are the people who solely focus on stub sorting and the stub proposal process, which is entirely skewed. The level of bureaucracy created here is entirely unnecessary, and while my comments here probably won't mean anything, I will just summarize with this: I am extremely dissatisfied with the nitpicking attitude of stub sorters, and that new categories and templates have to be approved before anything is done. Nowhere else is this done on Wikipedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you perhaps concentrate on reasons you think the stub type needs saving, rather than simply launching an unprovoked attack on stub sorters? As to things being approved before anything else is done only here and nowhere else on Wikipedia, that is patently untrue - protected pages also require talk-page discussion before editing is done to them, and among those protected pages are high-use templates. Most stub templates are, by definition, high use, so requiring some form of approval before creation makes perfect sense. It also makes perfect sense for other reasons which i have explained on your talk page. Grutness...wha?  00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanted to use the stub today when I found an article that fit in it. When I found it was deleted, I thought it was entirely unnecessary that these be deleted, and what you think is an attack, I call a criticism of this system. As I said, there is no where else on WIkipedia where you have to get something approved before you make the page. I know that this stub will have some use in the upcoming months when a new series and new articles relating to the subject.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since all of the articles currently marked with KamenRider-stub wouold be well covered by other stub types, I don't see that not having it would have been a problem. As to your other points, how is accusing stub sorters of being "nitpicking" an attack on the system? It is clearly an attack on individual editors. Furthermore, your automatic assumption that your "comments here probably won't mean anything" either indicates that you think that think your reasons for keeping the stub type are weak ones or that you think the process is some form of kangaroo court. If you meant the former, then your support of the stub is by implication poor; if you meant the latter, then it is an attack on anyone who would take part in the discussion process.


 * As for approval, what is "articles for creation" if not a process for getting approval before making a page? If there is some later point at which this stub type becomes useful, then it can always be re-proposed - until then, it has negligible current use, and as such should not be kept, especially when other stub types do the same work.


 * This SFD discussion was restarted so you could put your side of the argument - the stub type could quite easily have been speedily deleted as the re-creation of a page deleted after due formal process. As such, it would benefit everyone - and reflect far better on you - if you could argue why this stub type should be kept now - not why it could have some use at some future time, if and when more articles are written, not by railing against what you see as a perceived injustice or a "skewed process" in an attempt to justify why you never proposed the stub type in the first place, and not by attacking editors who are simply trying to improve Wikipedia by calling the nitpickers. You shouldn't need reminding that personal attacks (or at the very least gaming the system with mischaracterisation of other editors' actions), incivility (such as your heated comments on my talk page), and your seeming assumption of bad faith by the people taking part in this process - along with the re-creation of a template that had been deleted through due process - are all very WP:POINTY, and I'm more than a little concerned that an admin like you seems to be using such methods rather than keeping to the point of this debate in the first place. Grutness...wha?  08:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * May I gently point out that, between the time it was listed at Discoveries in May 2007 and the last update in September 2008, this stub was applied to only 22 items the entire time. It's currently applied to 21. I suggest that an alternative would be to upmerge the template, which I neither support nor oppose. Just saying. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 15:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, and strong censure of out-of-process undeletion, by a user who evidently has a strong interest here -- indeed, by all appearances, the only user with a strong interest here. Please, the very last thing WP needs is wheel wars on the basis of Oh Noes, They Deleted My Favourite Thing, I Shall Personally Restore It.  If you feel the original closure and deletion were incorrect, then deletion review is thataway.  Alai (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You stub sorters are all really touchy about your processes.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are, it's because we're doing a tremendous amount of work to support the organization of WP and getting little or no appreciation. And we certainly don't have a monopoly on touchiness. I don't think the fact that you disagree with WPSS is sufficient reason to nominate the entire project for deletion, though. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 21:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not the only reason I listed it for deletion. There are various issues at hand there, and in speaking with a few other users, they have similar feelings.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Objects to blatant, self-serving misuse of admin tools by a party to an editorial dispute equates to "really touchy about your processes", now? Frankly, this is utterly shameful behaviour in every respect.  Alai (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both as undersized, underutilized, and no rationale for keeping it has been offered beyond WP:ILIKEIT (which is no rationale at all). If other editors have a rationale for keeping these, as one respondent above indicates, then they should by all means weigh in here. There can be no consensus if the lurkers who support you in e-mail remain lurkers. - Dravecky (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside: this should really be at /P (which I'm happy to see is no longer listed at MFD...), but perhaps it would be more sensible to have a ?  There's a WPJ of that scope, and it might be numerically viable to have such a type (without recourse to padding the type out with article that aren't stubs (to say nothing of the article that aren't viable articles).  Alai (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't find the whole proposal process necessary. If stubs relating to tokusatsu would be more useful, then if someone wants to propose it, then do so. I'm through with these processes for some time.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since at no point have you participated in any such "process" in a constructive manner, the rest of us can only hope so. Alai (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2008 (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.

Wooden Churches of Maramures-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 delete

Unproposed, and need I say not quite appropriately named by WP:WSS/NG? Churches are subcategorisedfor stubbing by country and by denomination - not by construction material, neither are world heritage sites normally given their own stub types (offhand, I cannot think of a single one that has been). In the case of the redlinked category, gikven that there are only five articles in, there are unlikely to be the threshold 60 stubs for a stubcat. Delete. Grutness...wha?  23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no chance of even being in the ballpark of the 60 stubs threshold. Icewedge (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete lots. Alai (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for all the reasons stated above and no sign this could ever reach 30, never mind 60. - Dravecky (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2008 (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.

B&M-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 delete

Unproposed, and unnecessary, as well as being poorly named. Not only is B&M a dab page, but there's a capital S in stub. we don't need this, though - not only is not so full as to need splitting, but even if it was, we'd almost certainly split by location long before we considered splitting by construction company. Delete. Grutness...wha?  23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Alai (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as badly named, poorly conceived, and below the thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2008 (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.