Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/2006/August/19

Ruslana-stub

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

Used in about 40 articles, but I don't think individual artists should have their own stub types. The stub types are by category (songs, albums, artist pages, etc), but not individuals. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Too few stubs and stubs at this level of granularity need to be merged into larger articles if they can't be expanded past the stub stage. Caerwine Caerwhine  14:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Too narrow scope, not above 60 articles and no category (but the first reason is the most important). Valentinian (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lots of nano-stubs, many of which seem to be at an absurd level of re-re-re-splitting:  the  remix of the  language version of  single should be merged at least to the level of the  single, if not the  album.  If not deleted outright.  Alai 21:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. No offence to ms Ruslana, but while I see some individual artists as possibly being stubworthy, I don't think she fills the bill. At present The Beatles are the only artists with a separate stub (and there is an associated WikiProject), and while Ruslana may be very popular, I doubt she'd be top of the list for the next similar split, if at all. Also, as Alai points out, many of the listed stub articles probably deserve merging. Anyone care to start an AfD process on some of them? Grutness...wha?  00:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.