Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/May/15
May 15
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 category and upmerge template. WP:SILENCE (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 11:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Premature. Delete category, upmerge template. Only 9 articles currently in the permanent category. Dawynn (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2012 (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 discussion was Delete Category:Rhodesia stubs, upmerge {{Rhodesia-stub}} and replace and delete {{rhodesia-history-stub}}. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this project does not create stubs for disputed geopolitical entities. Dawynn (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the category, but (weak) keep the template for potential use in the future. I think that an exception might be warranted for Rhodesia due to the duration and historical and political significance of its de facto existence. However, I support the nomination since the number of articles is far below the required threshhold of 60. The subcategory, Category:Rhodesia history stubs also should be eliminated, and {{Rhodesia-history-stub}} should be replaced with {{Rhodesia-stub}}. Incidentally, shouldn't the affected articles be moved into Category:Zimbabwe stubs or its subcategories? -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both categories and {{rhodesia-history-stub}}, and upmerge or redirect {{Rhodesia-stub}}. History only has 2 articles, one of which isn't really a stub. --Qetuth (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2012 (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 discussion was Delete. Clear consensus. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this project does not create stubs for disputed geopolitical entities. Dawynn (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think that a stub type for articles about the history of a disputed state may be appropriate (e.g. {{Rhodesia-stub}} for Rhodesian constitutional referendum, 1969) in limited circumstances. However, a stub type that classifies current people or places in the same manner, as this one does, is best avoided. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Khazar2 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2012 (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 discussion was Upmerge. Per nom. WP:SILENCE. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category, upmerge template. I couldn't even push this up to a dozen. The article count just isn't there. Dawynn (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2012 (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 discussion was Delete. Consensus below; only one member. Simply not needed. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose delete, appropriate retags for any affected articles. Category is unproposed, and sets an uncomfortable precedent. To my knowledge, we do not have any such high-level split by gender. Precedent is that first split under nationality (or region) is occupation. Breaking by gender immediately after nationality, especially for such a populous country is begging to create an overpopulated category. Dawynn (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ""KEEP"" - eventhough there are no high level gender splits, there is a need for recognition for an Indian women , as they were societaliy put down in the past century, and any contribution by Indian women becomes an excellent chronology of their current importance. Shrikanthv (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be, but a stub type is not an appropriate vehicle for accomplishing the goal of providing "recognition for Indian women". Stub types are editorial tools to facilitate the sorting and expansion of short articles (see Wikipedia:Stub#Guidelines). -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - An intersection of nationality and gender is not useful except as a container for further subdivisions involving gender, nationality and (probably) occupation. This road, unfortunately, leads to the troubled waters of categorization by gender: for most countries and occupations, gender will be irrelevant, especially as it relates to stub sorting. Ultimately, I think that splitting by gender will lead to a more complex stub system with little additional benefit. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Such recognition would be better done through a 'History of' article or a list - By definition, a stub category should not have all the articles its name describes because at least some should be above stub class. Also, many groups across the world have been socially repressed, this does not imply membership in a group is a defining trait or part of what makes a member notable. So such categories should be restricted to pioneers and activists or they lose meaning. --Qetuth (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2012 (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.