Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/March/5

anime-eplist-stub / Category:Anime episode list stubs

 * 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. Even with 15 articles, this is still well below the usual threshold for creating a stub type subcategory. I intend to replace the template with Anime-series-stub on the articles where it appears, so if there is any objection to that, either let me know or just update the articles after me. --RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems excessively narrow, and is used on only two articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I've gone through and populated Category:Anime episode list stubs with the list stubs that were in Category:Anime and manga stubs. That makes 15 articles altogether. The stub's text should be reworded if it is to be kept. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for the most part, there should never be such a think as an "episode list stub". If it truly is a stub, it shouldn't even exist and needs to just be redirect back to the main article until such time as an actual list is available. List of Project ARMS episodes for example should either be redirected or deleted. It pretty much has no content at all other than fansub titles. List of Soul Link episodes is badly formatted, but it isn't a stub. It has the entire episode list. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons given by Collectonian. There shouldn't be any episode list stubs, and any that exist should be merged/redirected back to the main article until there is enough information to split them off into a non-stub list. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I (partially) agree with that. It's a better idea to keep the episode list on the main page and then create another page after enough information is available. However, Doing so might require cleanup which means that all the summaries might need to be deleted to remove clutter. For example, 50% of a large episode list is completed but will take too much space off the main page. This is however rather problematic as the information is enough to move it from the main page to a new one but that new page may still be a stub. Please reconsider this or at the very least, provide a better solution. Rather offtopic: As for the previous mention of 'fansub titles', that page should not even exist with such little information being available. It has a poorly formatted table too. It needs to be merged with the main page. At least the Kanji titles and some summaries should be provided with before creating such episode lists. (This is a rather easy thing to do: any TV channel which airs said series and has a showtime list can be used as a reference)Salmankhanpisces (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Episode lists don't have to be complete to be separated from the main series article. List of Cross Game episodes is a good example of this as the series is still airing. The episode list shouldn't be separated until there is enough material for it to not be a stub (say 8-10 episodes or so). This is why there should never be an episode list stub. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment note that stub-class isn't determined solely by article length - an article could be two or three pages long, but if it isn't wikified at all and is otherwise poorly formatted, I would still assess it as a stub. Similarly, if a chapter list is nothing but a list of titles or a badly formatted, hard-coded table, it would be a stub-class list (I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that there are simply too many episodes to just merge the list back to the main article, otherwise it should be merged until properly formatted and expanded). -- as 66.116.30.195 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What was the original intent of this? Right now it looks identical to   -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 14:32, 18 March 2010 (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.