Wikipedia talk:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories

message: I felt this is necessary, as there are certain stubs that project members at the WikiProject Stub sorting feel are useless and have not passed TFD or CFD.  Due to the nature of stubs, they can not be immediately deleted, especially when they have no use at all.  -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things:
#Trouble is, the rules on the project page actually make the process more long-winded. You mention here stubs that haven't passed tfd or cfd, yet you say here they need to have not passed tfd - a direct contradiction. Or is the project page meant to read "once any of the following guidelines have been met"?
#: I wrote it in a hurry.  I meant "once any of the following guidelines have been met".  TFD and CFD rules still apply, but we can optionally skip that process. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this page was created 

message: Okay, I updated the page.  I hope that is much clear now. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated 

message: ===Discrepancy in proposal===
I note that the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting removal process", rules 1 and 2 talk of a 10-day process, but rules 2 and 3 also refer to a two-week period. Personally I feel that the shorter period is already on the long side (a week would be fine in my view), but whichever way it needs to be tidied up.  Grutness|hello?  06:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It seems to me that one week is more than enough to reach a consensus. Two weeks could be needed in controversial cases, but I believe those are rare. --Sn0wflake 16:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A couple of suggestions about the proposal, and a comment

message: I note that the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting removal process", rules 1 and 2 talk of a 10-day process, but rules 2 and 3 also refer to a two-week period. Personally I feel that the shorter period is already on the long side (a week would be fine in my view), but whichever way it needs to be tidied up.  Grutness|hello?  06:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It seems to me that one week is more than enough to reach a consensus. Two weeks could be needed in controversial cases, but I believe those are rare. --Sn0wflake 16:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy in proposal

message: ... to include frivolously created stubs (such as ,  etc).  Grutness|hello?  06:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extend the definition of "vandalism"...

message: IMO the best thing about this proposal is it lets it stand alone from tfd and cfd. At the moment the process of stub deletion is a lengthy one. Deletions are proposed on WP:WSS, and if agreed to there are then sent for further debate at tfd, with the categories going to cfd. As it is, when something is sent to cfd the usual comment is "delete if the template gets deleted by tfd" - in other words, it's merely a rubber-stamp. It is also possible (inevitable?) that there will be occasions when WP:WSS don't want a stub, but deletion is not agreed to by tfd. The corrent proposals streamlime the deletion process, something which is greatly needed.  Grutness|hello?  06:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The best point about this proposal