Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/March/21
March 21
edit- 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, and marginal at best in terms of numbers. Suggest deleting the category and upmerging the template to Cat:Singapore stubs and Cat:Law stubs. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I created this stub category after reading a notice on the "Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board" encouraging users to specialize stub notices, not realizing there was a procedure for nominating the creation of new stubs. Sorry about that – am still pretty new to the arcana of Wikipedia! I agree there may not be many articles that qualify to be tagged with the {{Singapore-law-stub}} at the moment, but feel that there is scope for much growth. {{Singapore-stub}} is rather undifferentiated and could do with some refinement. Jacklee 12:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Resurgent insurgent 09:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge if it indeed approaches "marginal", otherwise delete. Alai 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 debate was delete
Unproposed. Interestingly, this parallels a current proposal at WP:WSS/P to create a regional geology stubs, given that there are 81 stubs on regional geology worldwide. There aren't enough yet for even a US regional geology stub, let alone starting to split out state-specific ones, so if 60 of these stubs are in Pennsylvania, I'd be extremely surprised. Currently has two stubs. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Resurgent insurgent 09:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Geology-by-region seems the way forward ultimately, but by US state is getting too far in front of what's likely to be sufficiently broad, on any non-geological timescale. So unless this is a lot more potentially-populous than it looks, delete. Alai 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.