Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/October/5

Tatar-writer-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, with redlinked category,. If it had been proposed, it would undoubtedly have been firmly rejected asa n idea - we have deleted similar stubs based on Tatarstan in the past, for the same reason that stubs are not made for other similar regions. Not generally helpful as a stub type (and decidedly unhelpful as a precedent). Delete. Grutness...wha?  00:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand why do you want to delete this stub. There are many Tatar writers and they need stub. --YildizTat (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In simple terms, Bio-stubs are divided by currently recognised country and current national boundaries except in very rare circumstances. Tatarstan is currently part of Russia - as such, Russia-writer-stub should be used. It's exactly the same reason why we don't, for instance, have Thrace-writer-stub, Kurdistan-writer-stub, Texas-writer-stub, Kashmir-writer-stub, Bavaria-writer-stub, or Chechnya-writer-stub - to give just a handful of examples. Even if we were to have such a stub, it would be at Tatarstan-writer-stub, not Tatar-writer-stub. In Tatarstan's case, it's further confused by the ambiguity of whether it refers to people from Tatarstan or people of Tatar descent. If it's the latter, we again - except in very, very rare circumstances - don't divide bio-stubs by ancestry. See also the similar debates forther down this page for and Livonia-bio-stub. Grutness...wha?  00:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Russian is understanding as nationality too. And many tatar writers lives and lived not only in Russia, so template Russian writers is not acceptable for them. Tatars are second nation in Russia with rich culture and literature, and you say, that we can't have our own template??? Russia is very big country with many different cultures and only one template for all of nations is a big mastake! I repeat, that Tatars live in all world, not only in Russia. --YildizTat (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Russia is not part of a country - it is a currently internationally recognised country. For the same reason writers in each of the other entities I mentioned above use the currently internationally accepted countries that they are within - a Kurdish writer living in Iraq would be marked with an Iraq-writer-stub, for instance. Grutness...wha?  23:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Grutness, splitting by subnational entity is not a great idea, and I think all the ones we have were unproposed, this one is as awkward as any other, is some one who is from Tatarstan but writes Russian literiture a Tatar writer, if so why is someone from US a Tatar writer if not why not he lives there. Waacstats (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But can't there be one stub for all Tatar writers, which can unite all of them?--94.180.162.57 (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stub types aren't intended to be used to unite people by ethnic origin - permanent categories already do that, as would a talk-page assessment template if there were a relevant WikiProject. Grutness...wha?  00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: - created since the template was nominated for deletion - is now also included in this nomination. Further note that even if every one of the 29 articles in were a stub (which is not the case - only some eleven are of stub size), it would fall short of the required threshold for a separate category by a considerable distance. Indeed, some of the articles which had been added to the stub category were not stubs. Grutness...wha?  00:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't new that. If it's so necessary, delete it.--YildizTat (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, following geography is the only really clear way to divide these stubs, so we need to be consistent. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 21 October 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.

NRO-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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC) 

Unproposed, and with a distinctly ambiguous name. The stbcat is not attached anywhere to the stub category tree. Used on 17 articles, all but one of which are actually bio-stubs (the remaining one should probably have listdev rather than a stub template). The associated permcat has fewer than 50 articles in total (including its subcat), so there's no chance of this having 60 current stubs. Upmerge would be an option if (a) the template had been named correctly and (b) it was actually used for things which should be using it rather than bio-stubs. As it is, it seems less than useful even as a redirect. Delete. Grutness...wha?  00:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Send to SFD and delete. Waacstats (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops already on SFD - therefore Delete. Waacstats (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Most of the articles in this stubcat should be re-tagged as bio-stubs; the ambiguous name also leads me to support deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:53, 9 November 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.

WightmanCup-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 stub type for a tennis tournament. Currently used on two articles, and the associated permcat only has fifteen articles in total - even if all of them were stubs (which they aren't) it would only get 25% of the way to being viable as a separate stub category. Probably not even that useful as an upmerged template - is fairly large, but splitting it by decade or era would probably make more sense. Delete. Grutness...wha?  00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * send to SFD and delete, will look at some other way to split tennis comp stubs. Waacstats (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops already on SFD - therefore Delete. Waacstats (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Need more coffee? :) As to other ways of splitting, a GrandSlam-tennis-stub to cover the four majors might help things out, though i still think a by-decade split might help more. That is a discussion for WSS/P, though. Grutness...wha?  23:15, 6 October 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.