Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/June/5

E.tiaratum-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

A textbook example of an unproposed and overspecialised stub type. Stubs by family or even genus may be acceptable, but stub types for an individual species? Consider two questions: a) howe many articles could be stubbed with this? b) How many stub types would this form a precedent to, in terms of stub types for individual species? As it is, this ewas used on one article, probably the only one it could ever be used on (one which was also happily stubbed with two adequate stub templates). It also has no category link, which, in a way, is just as well, since it's one less thing to consider deleting. Grutness...wha?  01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete. Tho we do have a few stubs dedicated to a single species – dog-stub, cat-stub, horse-stub, and bio-stub – except for bio-stub, they're for domesticated species. ;) Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah - but that last one's so dangerous it's worth keeping a close eye on ;) More seriously, unless there are as many breeds and strains of E. tiaratum as there are for cats or dogs, it seems unnecessary. Grutness...wha?  06:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to limited scope.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * update - to confuse matters further, the creator of this has now moved it to E.tiaratum-stub. It was an unlikely stub, but its a totally inappropriate WP-space page! Grutness...wha?  10:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: editor has now been indef blocked for vandalism threats, and per nom.  [Jam] [talk] 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also   and    per nom.
 * You want those tagged and nommed as well? Alai (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is OK. I figured that I could just add them on the end of this nom, since they are by the same editor and probably fall under the same deletion descriptions.  [Jam] [talk] 10:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no objection. However, these are for entire insect orders -- I'm guessing they're populable, and in spades.  OTOH, there seems to be no actual pressing need for them either, and they're unused and uncategorised, so perhaps we should err on the side of just cleaning up the current mess.  Alai (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me, too, but note that this now needs to be kept open for a few more days (until the 17th) to allow a week for the new nom. Grutness...wha?  01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no issue with that :). I think the only objector would be the original creator (although they already said on their talk page that I could delete on of the templates if I wished) but they've been indefinitely blocked (as I said earlier).  [Jam] [talk] 07:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given all of the above it seems a bit excessive to throw this into the backlog just for the sake of running out the clock, so I've deleted them all. (Not closing this immediately lest anyone wish to comment further, approvingly, on my rougeishness, or otherwise, but I'll do so tomorrow.)  Alai (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Might as well do it now. Since the creator of those two has an indef block and you've deleted the templates it seems moot. Grutness...wha?  01:44, 13 June 2008 (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.


 * 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 upmerge

An upmerger candidate, per discussion at WSS/D. Unlikely to get close to 60 stubs any time soon, though the template is fine as an upmerged type, per similar precedents. Grutness...wha?  01:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Anytime soon" seems to be something of an understatement, even if adaptive radiation were somehow outpacing extinction. Inherently undersized, upmerge.  Alai (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (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.