Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/August/8


 * 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 per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

An unproposed split from the main Indian geo-stub category that has fewer than 20 stubs, and a quick scan makes it clear that there aren't the required number of stubs for a stand-alone category. Propose reupmerging. Grutness...wha?  23:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support upmerge as the specificity of the stub template isn't needed. Airplaneman   ✈  15:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There are similar stub categories for all other Indian states and Union Territories. Removing this particular one does not make sense. It will be difficult to expand the stubs under this category and also it is expected that there won't be too many stubs under this as this is a small region (islands). --GDibyendu (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are similar stub categories for all Indian states and territories which have met the required threshold for being split out, as explained at WP:STUB. Some, such as Changigarh have not yet met the threshold, and so have not yet been split out. Lakshadweep geography stubs has not met this target either, as it has fewer than 60 stubs. This would have been explained to you had you followed procedure and proposed the stub type (and saved everyone time and effort). Unless this category grows to the required number of stubs, it should be upmerged until the tikme when it has enough stubs. Grutness...wha?  11:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I got your point. As such I am not much interested in stub categories; I just created this one 1 year back as I thought it was missed out (there was no explanation in the parent stub category why it was not there) and that it will be helpful for interested contributors to expand stubs under this category. BTW, if you are sure that this stub category should get deleted, then why bother informing me and waste my time? Time spent in WP is for free, and by unnecessarily bothering them over trivial stuffs will alienate them for sure. Regards.--GDibyendu (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support upmerge per nom. Dana boomer (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2010 (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.