The Cunctator wrote:
It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We
have
methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive than simply deleting them.
There are plenty of things that are not offensive or illegal that are fine to list on VfD. "List pages that you believe will simply will never become encyclopedia articles. For example, articles that represent completely idiosyncratic non-topics, articles that could never be more than dictionary definitions, etc." says the deletion policy.
I agree that stubs should not be deleted, but "sub-stubs" should be. Whether something is a stub or a sub-stub is a matter of opinion of course.
Jake wrote:
Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to
be
deleted.
If you think that Wikipedia is for any kind of knowledge whatsoever, then you're right. If you think (as I do) that Wikipedia should only be for topics of a certain importance, then in fact most of the pages listed there should be deleted.
Again, I find it amazing that we have no policy on this. The deletion process cannot be fixed until we agree on the most basic criteria for deletion. We're supposed to delete pages that "will simply will never become encyclopedia articles", yet we have no basic agreement about what this means.
Alex