Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/April/11

WikiLeaks-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 discussion was delete

Unproposed, malformed stub template, unlinked to any category, stub or permanent. Given that the WikiLeaks permcat has fewer than 50 articles, many of which are well beyond stub length (a random sample of ten articles found only two stubs, and one of those was borderline), and that we have other stub types which could be used for any of them, this seems fairly un-useful at present. Delete. Grutness...wha?  14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete not likely there'll be enough articles here. &mdash;innotata 14:00, 22 April 2011 (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.


 * 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 discussion was delete, create new acrobatic diving category

Dawynn (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose new category . To pick up template Acrobatics-diving-bio-stub (336 P).  Permcat.
 * Note: Template Underwater-diving-bio-stub is already upmerged to . Remove upmerge to.
 * Delete category and template Diving-bio-stub (empty).

Two extra notes: In this case, I'm proposing to follow the permcats, rather than the historical precedent. Dawynn (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Original discussion can be reviewed here: February 2009 archive.
 * Consider that the permcats do not combine the two activities.
 * Support we've just done similar with the parent, so this should follow suit, especially given the lack of permcat. I'd be happier if there was a double-upmerge of the underwater bio template so that it stayed in some form of bio category as well... sadly at only 28 stubs it's too thin for its own category yet. Grutness...wha?  13:34, 11 April 2011 (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.


 * 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 discussion was delete both

Propose delete category, upmerge template to. has less than 20 articles altogether. Template name is RoboCop-stub. Not sure why this was created as a much more limited category than the template called for, but even a RoboCop stub category would be greatly undersized. Willing to hear suggestions on better places to upmerge / double-upmerge. Dawynn (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both category and template. 17 articles in the permcat is nowhere near enough to even start thinking about a stub cat (or a template really for that matter) even if every single one of them were a stub. And this isn't a case of undersorting - the one stub marked with this template is the only stub in the permcat parent! Note too that the text of the template says that it's for characters (despite the name of the template itself), so there's something seriously amiss with it. Simply not needed. Grutness...wha?  13:34, 11 April 2011 (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.

Category:United States history book stubs

 * 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 discussion was default to status quo. General apathy wins


 * The following nomination has been relisted to generate more discussion. The previous discussion is in the box below. Subsequent comments should be made below the box. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * Moved from talk page as a procedural nom

Category:United States history book stubs was nominated on 28 February for speedy renaming to Category:History book about the United States stubs. Since it is a stub category, it is ineligible for speedy renaming, and the listing has been removed. I am posting this notice here so that a discussion about the category, if it is thought to be necessary, can be initiated. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably worth discussing, though the new name is pretty cumbersome, and unless a better name can be found I'd be leaning towards keeping it as is. Though I can see the point of differentiating between books from and about the US, I can't help but wonder whether there's a better name (stub category names don't always exactly reflect permcat names). Anyone have any better possible names? Grutness...wha?  22:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ''The above is older, pre-relist discussion. No further edits should be made above this point. Subsequent comments should be made below.

''
 * 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.