wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com wrote:
All right. The big deleters (Engels, Jheimens, Mav) have adopted a more aggressive policy for deleting pages than the stated one (on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] and [[Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages]]).
Primarily, they delete stubs.
I - my username is Jheijmans - don't delete stubs. The pages I delete contain:
* outright gibberish, such as "afqweoriyqpwtha;sehfqpiugaigasgfas;lkfjzczvzzcvz1234" * vandalism, such as "F*CK YOU", "Haha I can edit this page" * "Put your text for the new article here" * non-encyclopedia material, such as "Check my website at http://www.geocities.com/thisiscool", or "For information on this subject, check my website" * copyrighted material - which I list first as such on the deletion votes pages * sub-stub information of the level "George Bush is the president" or "Malawi is some sort of place in Africa, I think"
I also remove pages like the above, emptied or marked as such by other Wikipedians
For a large part, the pages I delete have existed for less than a day. I don't see that deleting such crap would hamper anybody to write a serious stub or article about the topic.
On the topic of sub-stubs, this was discussed some weeks ago on the list, and I believe the general opinion was that there's no need for such sub-stubs.
Jeronimo
Jeronimo wrote in last part:
On the topic of sub-stubs, this was discussed some weeks ago on the list, and I believe the general opinion was that there's no need for such sub-stubs.
It was certainly discussed, and I'm the one that brought it up, but I honestly don't think that any consensus was reached on them. If a deleted page's history is preserved and easily read, then I will certainly join the consensus to delete them (whereas before I was just being provocative to suggest it).
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org