Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Snow close . Not remotely the right place. If you want to have a conversation, start one on the wikiproject talk page or a Village Pump project. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting

redundant over-specific templates - {{underpopulated stub category}}, {{very large stub category}}, {{deprecated stub}}

Do we really need all this bureaucracy for stub templates? I don't think so. You want to create a new stub template? You have to go through WSS first. What's that, you've decided to just be bold and create the template? Too bad; it's going to TFD, where the 5 active TFDers will ignore it, causing it to be automaticallly deleted. I propose that WSS be shut down and the stub template process be made much less process-y, per the Esperanza precedent. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion via this forum, as a procedural matter. Although this is the appropriate XFD for deletion of a WikiProject, this forum, like TFD, mentioned above, only has a few active participants. This should be taken to one of the Village Pump project pages for more thorough discussion. I haven't researched the details of Stub Sorting, and I doubt that the other regular editors here have. It is true that, in seven days, the regular editors here can do the research, but do you really want the regular editors here to be the committee to decide this issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. MfD is not a forum for revoking processes. You want to start an RfC on a talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC). No chance of deletion over archiving, anyway. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. As a stub sorter, the claims of mockery and harassment mentioned above are a surprise to me; the nom hasn't brought these issues to the project participants afaik. The project may not be as active as in the past but it still serves a purpose within the larger 'pedia. Pegship (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion, start an RfC instead. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion: no idea what this is about - interestingly none of the above pages show anything in their recent history which suggests dissent (unless the dispute was so heated that diffs were revdelled?). PamD 08:00, 5 April 2018 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.