Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/October/18

Supergiant-star-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 upmerged to star stubs

This is unproposed. Someone else tried to speedy this, but it was declined. This is not a stub template, though it claims to be one. There is no associated category, and it is not supported by the appropriate WikiProjects. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. It is a stub template, but incorrectly links to a permcat rather than a stub cat. It was listed in WP:WSS/D last month, where comments suggested that it was a reasonable addition, but if WP:Astronomy doesn't want it, then fair enough. Grutness...wha?  20:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whachamean, "not supported"? WPSS decided to split the stars by luminosity class, hence, etc.  Upmerge to , until such time as it has a viable population.  Alai (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Going by the comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy it's not well-liked over there. Grutness...wha?  23:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What comments exactly? Where?  Do they want some other split?  No split?  Triple-tagging, as some (I'd assumed rogue) user has been doing?  Let's try and keep these sorted on some sort of consistent basis, and not be rowing in several different directions at once.  Alai (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops - sorry: make that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects - specifically here, where it's clear that there was a proposal to speedily delete the template which failed. Looks like the template 's creator has been causing some problems for WP:AO one way and another with questionable edits and creations. If it's useful to WP:A and to WP:WSS, then I've no objection to it being kept, so I'm definitely willing to change my !vote. Grutness...wha?  05:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll check by there in due course: in any case, there's a shedload of cleanup work required in  -- mostly caused by the same editor that created this, unfortunately -- so before destroying a little bit more of my soul in doing so, and then finding someone else heaving in the opposite direction, I'll see if there's (still) support for this axis of split.  Alai (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Currently the template links to 7 articles, with no visible growth. I suggest we upmerge it until it looks like somebody wants to use it. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand its usage. There might be more stubs that need this template. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 20:45, 6 January 2009 (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.

GC-church-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

Unproposed, and with several problems. First, has only three articles, so getting this up to 60 stubs will be problematical, to say the least. Second, the template not only has a very un-NC name, but also has no text at all. It's also worth noting that not only is there no category for, but Greek Catholicism is a redirect to Eastern Catholic churches. Seems less than unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha?  00:35, 18 October 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.