Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/August/11

Six undersized Indian geo-stub categories

 * 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone has been busy. ,, and between them have only 17 stubs; the first of these categories has a mere two stubs! Unless the number of stubs in these categories can be greatly expanded very quickly (which seems unlikely going by catscan), these should all be upmerged back into the main. There is no sign that these are likely to get even close to the necessary threshold,a nd they would not have been supported for creation if they had been proposed in the normal way. Three other categories,, , and , are also grossly undersized (25-40 stubs each) and should also be upmerged if they cannot be brought up to 60 stubs. Grutness...wha?  12:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. It is not really helpful to have sparsely populated stub categories. Airplaneman   ✈  23:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Grutness is back, hoorah. Support upmerger. Waacstats (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In a limited capacity only, but thanks for the cheers :) Grutness...wha?  10:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. Dana boomer (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.