Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/3
January 3 edit
Category:Orange County river stubs/Template:OCriverstub 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 discussion was Delete
- Delete both - never proposed, highly underpoplulated category and scan doesn't find many more, template misnamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...not to mention that we don't split out specific types of landforms for stubs. Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 06:26, 3 January 2011 (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.
{{British-Museum-stub}} / Cat:British Museum-related 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 discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unproposed, and problematical on many levels:
- heavily underpopulated
- category name uses the long deprecated "-related" schema
- template name makes it seem like a subtype of museum stub, i.e., a stub for museum buildings, rather than items connected with one museum
- used on a number of different types of already well-catered for stubs, mostly UK-archaeology-stubs but also UK-academic-stubs and even a London-road-stub.
Unnecessary, confusing, poorly named, and - if necessary for a WikiProject - better covered by a talk page banner. Delete. If kept, template should be renamed (preferably to {{BritishMuseum-stub}}) and upmerged, though the agglomerative nature of the articles tagged will make that tricky. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete though I think this may have something to do with a link between Wikipedia and the British Museum may be worth checking out first. Waacstats (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2011 (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.