At 17:05 22/10/2003 -0700, Mark (Delirium) wrote: Then it could be deleted on the grounds that it would never be more than a stub (I don't know if it's formalised anywhere, but deleting things for that reason has been pretty widely done in the past). OK, maybe there's a *bit* more to a "keepable" article than it simply being verifiable, but I guess my main point is that it's possible to make a reasonable decision about whether to delete an article without resorting to (necessarily subjective) judgements on its "importance" or "notability". That's my feeling, anyway. Lee (Camembert)

Lee Pilich wrote: Better IMO is to redirect him to [[List of foos]], where "foo" means whatever got him on in the first place (residents of his hometown, Wikipedians trying to make a point [*], etc). A while ago, [[Gnasher]] was redirected to [[Dennis the Menace (UK)]] because it too would (in all probability) never be more than a stub. (This is the last example that I recall coming up on the list.) That is the right thing to do, not to delete [[Gnasher]]; if you delete it, then somebody will come along and create it again. [*] Actually, if the article is created merely to make a point, then I don't mind particularly if it ends up deleted. I don't care much for articles created to make a point, even when I still have more hope for them than /most/ people do. But if it's created for an earnest reason, even a bad one, then it will come up again and so should be redirected someplace better. -- Toby