User blog comment:PsiCubed2/Let's Bring this to vote, shall we?/@comment-3427444-20170625080751/@comment-28606698-20170630123357

At first, Psi, I agree with you in principal points, I just to say about some details: Obviously manually created article with interesting content is better than a stub created by a bot and using of bots is admitable only at some conditions. The English Wikipedia is the best since it has enoughly authors for manual creation of articles but for a language section of Wikipedia with a small number of participants it is not a crime to use bots for creation of numerous articles about small geographical objects or biological kinds. In all languages sections more than half of Wikipedia’s articles created by bots were written by the single Swedish program Lsjbot which wrote about 9 millions of biological/geographical articles. For example like this. Not worst stub-article. At least not spam/vandalism.

In august 2016 I have seen how much time some users spend for manual writing of standard stubs for each Saibian's number and I thought about automation of this process t o avoid inefficient spending of human labor and time (as for me, mainly was interesting to study new language of programming which allows to create a bot). For stubs creation a bot is good choice. But stub exists for further manual development (particularly by adding of tables of approximations) to become really useful. Look how this stub has evolved up to the full article during five years. I believe all existing stubs someday will become full articles.

I don't think that article has not right for existence only by the reason that it can be created by a bot but I agree with you: now we have too big share of stubs, I think about 60%.

So what should we do? For example such articles can be marked by tag "This article is a stub of article about a number and it too short to provide more than definition of this number. You can help wikia improving this article. Anyone can edit a stub article, or remove a stub template from an article which is no longer a stub." And since this day if in stub category more than for example 1000 articles then new stubs creation is illegal. That is one of possible suggestions. May be we can limit share of stubs as 10%.

Anyway as was said I personally plan in future to create articles not by princip "one number=one article" but to deployed in each articles a whole regiment of numbers grouped by some relationship.

About personality articles: if we want to extend the category "People" really why not to do it but there are a lot of users who deserve personal articles at least no less than me and even much more. I mean Wythagoras, Hyp cos, LittlePeng, Deedlit, Emlightened and so on. For me would be immodestly to discuss article about me when wikia is having not articles about them.