Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/June/8
June 8 edit
{{CCtransit-stub}} / no cat edit
- 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
Never proposed, cryptically named, no category. This is actually for Cape Cod Transit - and Cat:Cape Cod Transit has precisely three articles. The chance of sixty of those three being stubs is not high. Utterly useless. Delete. Grutness...wha? 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This fish is too small. Valentinian T / C 18:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete well put Valentinian.
- Delete per above. It's used on two articles which are already categorized, and which can be recast into more general stub listings. YechielMan 06:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
{{Salem Stub}} / Cat:Salem witch trials stubs edit
- 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 keep and clean up
Never proposed, misleadingly named, no category, non-standard name. This is actually for stubs relating to the Salem witch trials, not for Salem itself. Cat:Salem witch trials has 40 articles (don't be misled by the subcategory - many of the articles are in both it and the main cat). Wikiproject? Yes and no - there is a "working party", part of a larger Wikiproject which already has a main dedicated stub template. Even if there had been a fully-=fledged SWT WikiProject, this would require considerable re-working and would need 75% of the articles to be stubs for it to be worthwhile. I can't see much future for this one. Grutness...wha? 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to be used on over 30 of those articles at present, so weak keep, provided it's cleaned up (i.e. renamed to comply with NGs, given a category, and de-"task force"-spammed). Alai 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So in short, we need a new name, possibly a category, a new non-fair use image and we need to remove the advertisement for the task force. It would be somewhat easier if people just used WP:WSS/P. Has anybody done a proper count of this material? Valentinian T / C 18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just not "bold" enough for some people, though. As I say, there's 30-something articles that transclude it at present, which I think is enough unless we quibble about the difference between a "task force" and a first-order WPJ. Alai 20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the stub type of course i will say keep.-- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the one of the creaters of the The Salem Witch Trials Task Force, I of course say "Keep". Psdubow 22:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm an uninvolved party, but I think that if the Salem Witch Trials find it useful to slap stub tags on their articles, the encyclopedia comes out ahead. YechielMan 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.