Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/January/1

ESA-stub/, also

 * 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

Relisting this, since it was closed as "no consensus" - something rarely if ever done at SFD. The original debate is at Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/August/17. The earlier debate ended with two calls for keeping and three of upmerging. The situation has changed little since that time - in tyhe last five months neither category has moved close to meeting the required threshold for a stub category (the larger of them is at only 41 stubs). We also now have the very first - and hopefully only ever - stub category redirect, since the original category of was perplexingly made into a redirect. I repeat my earlier suggestion, to keep ESA-stub and NASA-stub but to upmerge them into a new category of, at least until such time as they are big enough to stand alone - something which they have not achieved even after five months of scrutiny. Grutness...wha?  04:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support sounds like a great plan. Waacstats (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Upmerge until they reach the required threshold. twirligigLeave one! &#8900; Check me out! 22:15, 18 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.