Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/May/1

Euro-basketball-player-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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A handful of new unproposed and seemingly unnecessary stub types... starting with this one which is redundant to the long-standing Europe-basketball-bio-stub and, as well as not following the normal naming patterns. Delete. Grutness...wha?  23:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support delete. Although the 'bio-stub' templates can be used on managers, referees, etc, the overwhelming majority of articles tagged are players.  Delete as redundant.  Dawynn (talk) 19:33, 5 May 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.

Tijuana-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

Plausibly useful, but at the moment every article using it should be marked as a geo-stub, not as a general stub, and Mexicoan geo-stubs are divided by state, not city. All these articles should be marked with BajaCalifornia-geo-stub. No indication from or  that this stub type is particularly useful at present (it would need 2/3 of the total articles in the permcat parent to be stubs for this to get close to threshold). Either delete (first option) or upmerge if it seems useful. At the very least, some tidying is definitely required, especially of the category. Grutness...wha?  23:57, 1 May 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.

Bengali-Hindu-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 relisted on 23 June 2011 to gain consensus

Seems an unnecessary split, and counter to the way Hinduism stubs is currently being split. Another deletion candidate unless any justification can be shown as to why this is a reasonable split, unlikely given that there's no equivalent permcat. At the very least, some tidying is definitely required, especially of the category. Grutness...wha?  23:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It may not be at all unnecessary. Hindu is not just about adhering to Hinduism. There is a social, cultural and ethnic element to it. The Bengali Hindu people have unique things about them - no less than 36 castes, innumerable sects and historic events, which are not shared by other Hindus. The same is true for other Hindu ethno-linguistic groups - the Punjabi Hindus, the Tamil Hindus and so on. In my view, they need similar sub-grouping. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It still seems an unusual split, given the usual way that religious, social and ethnic stubs in general are split. Consider the other sub-categories of Hinduism stubs relate directly to philosophy, mythology, theology, biography, and holy places. More importantly, as a topic area it does not have a permanent category, something which should always come before a stub split, and certainly there's no indication that there are enough stubs to meet the requirement for a separate stub category. Grutness...wha?  23:32, 4 May 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 Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Only six stubs, and no sign that it will meet threshold in the near future. Unproposed. Upmerge template into and, unless it can get to threshold before this discussion finishes. Grutness...wha?  00:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support upmerge. My efforts to fill the category still fell short of 30 articles. Dawynn (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Category already has a few articles and can well be populated in the future, considering the size of Category:Pakistani scientists. Mar4d (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is another example of "We may have enough articles in the future". Invalid argument.  Do we have enough (60+) stub articles now?  If not, keep template, delete category, with no prejudice against recreating the category once we have enough articles.


 * Feel free to tag appropriate stub articles on your own, if you think there are enough articles to justify the category now. Dawynn (talk) 13:57, 10 May 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.