Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/February/9

American folk singer-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 rename as US-folk-singer-stub, upmerged if necessary

Unproposed, incorrectly named, unused template with no category link, superfluous to existing, correctly-named stub types for the same subject. Delete. Grutness...wha?  00:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support deletion as unused but what I can't seem to find the correctly named stub type - US-folk-singer-stub may be useful, atleast upmerged. The US singers are getting large again Waacstats (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. My assumption that we had one was misguided. In that case renaming and upmerging would make sense. Grutness...wha?  00:08, 10 February 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.

Azerbaijan-eco-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

Not used anymore - Nabla (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unproposed upmerged template. If it had been proposed, we'd have pointed out that "eco" is no longer used in stub names, since it can refer to economics, ecology, and many other subjects which have stub types within the stub tree. I seriously doubt that this template is needed, given the size of (only a fraction over 200 stubs) and also given the fact that AFAIK there are no other by-nation economy stubs, so suggest deletion. Even in the unlikely event that it is useful it needs renaming to the more standard Azerbaijan-econ-stub, with deletion of the current name. Currently used on only one article, which isn't an econ-stub, but is, rather, a bank-stub. Perhaps an Azerbaijan-company-stub would be more useful and appropriate? Grutness...wha?  00:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its supposed to be Azerbaijan-economy-stub, which is very usefull. Do you want me to move it to economy instead? Baku87 (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not until discussion here is finished, then if the consensus is to move it'll be done. Changing it in mid-discussion only confuses things. Grutness...wha?  00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * are generally split by topic, rather than geography. I suggest we start with -company- per Grutness, if that's what the author means by economy. Pegship (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the best option would be to use Azerbaijan-economy-stub if we just use company it will exlude other economical project such as Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline or South Caucasus Pipeline these are not companies but they are related to the economy of Azerbaijan. So in order to cover the entire sphere of Azerbaijani economics we should use economy if we would use company then we would have to create more sub-stubs to cover evertyhing. Baku87 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give us a count as to how many articles would be so tagged? Pegship (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No discussion for over 2 months, and currently used in one article - Unibank Commercial Bank. delete? - Nabla (talk) 23:58, 1 May 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.

Eco-stub (redirect)

 * 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 Replace with econ- or ecology- as needed

follow-up to the above comments... we still do have eco-stub as a redirect to ecology-stub. And it's currently being used on several ecology stubs and several economy stubs (which highlights the reason we shouldn't still have it around). I've emptied some of the economy ones out of it, but it should probably be got rid of completely. Delete. Grutness...wha?  00:34, 9 February 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.