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

August 11 edit

Six undersized Indian geo-stub categories 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 Upmerge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has been busy. Cat:Daman and Diu geography stubs, Cat:Dadra and Nagar Haveli geography stubs, and Cat:Puducherry geography stubs 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 Cat:India geography stubs. 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, Cat:Nagaland geography stubs, Cat:Mizoram geography stubs, and Cat:Meghalaya geography stubs, 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)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. It is not really helpful to have sparsely populated stub categories. Airplaneman ✈ 23:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Grutness is back, hoorah. Support upmerger. Waacstats (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In a limited capacity only, but thanks for the cheers :) Grutness...wha? 10:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Dana boomer (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

August 8 edit

Cat:Lakshadweep geography stubs 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 Upmerge per nom. Ruslik_Zero 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support upmerge as the specificity of the stub template isn't needed. Airplaneman ✈ 15:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
Support upmerge per nom. Dana boomer (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2010 (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.

August 2 edit

Cat:Missouri rail stubs/{{Missouri-rail-stub}} 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. Unused stub type. Ruslik_Zero 16:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - unproposed; unpopulated; category malformed, and only has one of its natural parents, and no permcat; no ther state of the United States has such a category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused stub sorter (in mainspace, anyway). —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a separate stub separate from road. The only reason that I created the stub is because Misoouri already has a road stub. (Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - An unused stub type. I'm assuming it was intended to be used on articles such as Pacific Railroad, but the Missouri stub cat it not big enough to need splitting and the US rail stub cat has no precedent for being split by state. Dana boomer (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2010 (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.

Road stubs by state 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 merge all. — ξ ^xplicit 20:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging:

Reason: all these categories are too small (under 20 articles). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerging seems reasonable. Airplaneman ✈ 15:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, seems reasonable. Why not the rest of them too, though? Just in the Midwestern parent cat, Michigan, Minnesota and Indiana are also well under, while Kansas and Ohio are sub-50. In the Northeastern parent cat, Vermont is at 30, and in the Southern cat, Alabama and Maryland are well under. Upmerging all of these as well would not make the parent cats unwieldy, IMHO. Dana boomer (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2010 (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.