Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/July

July 1[edit]

{{Scotland-constituency-stub}} / Category:Scottish Parliamentary constituencies 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 delete category; redirect template to UK-poli-stub

Neither stub nor category are in use or likely to be used in the near future. The stub type was discovered back in August 2006 with a total of 72 articles, however all Scottish Parliamentary constituency articles have now reached a status of C-class on the quality scale. The only way that new constituency articles will be needed is if there are significant boundary changes ahead of the next Scottish Parliament election in 2011 and even then there are unlikely to be many new constituencies. Delete as an unused stub type unlikely to be used in the next 3 years. Road Wizard (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the category, certainly. Either delete the template or make it into a redirect to the equivalent UK template. If it's been used it may be still on someone's radar, and there's no real harm in having it as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a redirect proposal. Just to clarify though, the closest equivalent UK template would appear to be {{UK-poli-stub}} which is linked to Category:British politics stubs. However, the {{UK-election-stub}} template which links to Category:British election stubs is also an option. Road Wizard (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2008 (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.

July 4[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 cat, upmerge template

Cook Islands sportspeople stubs[edit]

Just getting round to tidying up this stub category after earlier mess. Cat:Cook Islands sportspeople stubs is tiny (single figures) and will probably be so for some time to come. Propose delete and upmerge sole feeding template, {{CookIslands-rugbyleague-bio-stub}} to Cat:Cook Islands stubs, Cat:Oceanian sportspeople stubs and Cat:Rugby league biography stubs. Severo^TC 17:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sounds reasonable - support. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge would now be to Cat:Cook Islands stubs and Cat:Oceanian rugby league biography stubs. Severo^TC 22:06, 14 July 2008 (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.

July 5[edit]

Undersized US-journo erroneous un-upmergings[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 cats & upmerge tpls

All undersized (some absurdly so), unproposed, and unnecessary. Upmerge. Maybe we really do need those "yes, we did mean this to be this way!" comments on all those templates after all. Alai (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom unless easily populable. BTW, I regularly use such messages (have a look at, say Palau-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 01:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, hence the comment. Alai (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2008 (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.

July 8[edit]

Cat:County Fermanagh 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; still well below threshold despite further scrounging

All of Northern ireland's geo-stubs have been sorted by traditional county, and Co. Fermanagh (which was pre-emptively given a category some time back) has a grand total of 24 stubs, which is considerably on the small side. Upmerge to Cat:Northern Ireland geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 11:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge, per nom. Alai (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts, it might be worth trying to get this one up to threshold - there seems to be considerable understubbing of N.I. geo articles. Still a case of upmerge if we can't get it there, but it might get a bit closer. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update - I managed to get it to 41 stubs. Still pretty sparse, but but'll be the only NI county without its own category. Might be worth turning a blind eye to. Grutness...wha? 05:42, 9 July 2008 (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.

{{Arg-National University-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 rename, upscope, upmerge

Arg indeed. An unproposed and remarkably un NC-compliant stub template, poorly worded and redlinking to non-existent permcat. I'd have no objection to an upmerged {{Argentina-university-stub}}, which this seems to be trying to be... but not to this. Rename, point somewhere sensible, and lose the redirect. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge (etc) to the South American category if we have one, or if we don't, investigate whether that's now looking feasible. Alai (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main University body of Higher education in Argentina is the National University system, this catch more than half of their higher students attendance. Can be merged to South america university and as Grutness said to an Argentine university stub --ones that can be account the private university system in Argentina-- Carau (talk)
- Just for your information, Carau, the standard way of splitting universities is simply by country (we have, for instance, {{France-university-stub}} and {{Australia-university-stub}}) rather than whether the university is private or part of some state-run system. So the logical thing would be to have one stub template for all of Argentina's universities and - given the number of stubs that there would be - it is more practical to simply have one category for all South American university stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 10 July 2008 (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.

July 9[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

{{Kuyavian-Pomeranian-geo-stub}} redirect[edit]

Non-NG redirect, resulting from a template move. Was used on exactly two articles, now orphaned by re-sorting. Alai (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused, redundant. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (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

{{Northern-Ireland-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

Another non-NG redirect. Seemingly little used (and now orphaned) - it was on three articles. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 9 July 2008 (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.

July 15[edit]

{{CarnivorousPlants-stub}} / Cat:Carnivorous plant 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 delete

Unproposed, badly named, and badly scoped. If this had been proposed, then it might at least have had the correct name ({{Carnivorous-plant-stub}}), and the category would have had some sort of parents (this one has none). More likely than not it would have been rejected overall, though, since for stub-sorting purposes plants are divided by family and genus, not by their personal habits or nourishment. Sure, this has a lot of stubs, but that in itself doesn't make this a valid stub type (I daresay a {{thing-stub}} could be used on tens of thousands of articles, but that wouldn't make it reasonable to have one).

There does appear to be a WikiProject, but - as usual - they'd be far better off with a talk-page banner assessment template rather than a stub type. They already have and use such a template, and - if their project page is anything to go by, they don't know about this stub template (it's not mentioned on either the project page or the talk page). Delete, or at the very least rename and lose the redirect. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with your reasoning, Grutness. I did notice the new stub type (my watchlist exploded with it being added to a bunch of pages I watch) and had planned on bringing it for discussion here. It was created by a new contributor to WP:CPS who, it seems, is not familiar with the stub proposals list. I think we have it covered with our genus ({{Nepenthes-stub}}), family ({{Lentibulariaceae-stub}}), and other various taxonomic stub types. We're slowly creating more stubs and so will propose those new taxonomic stubs when we reach critical mass. However, you would be wrong about stub types based on habit. We do have {{tree-stub}} and {{fruit-tree-stub}}. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I'd forgotten about that one, though that's because it intersects with a stub for fruit. IIRC we don't have one for carnivores per se. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't thinking when I made the category. Sorry! The Llama! (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (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.

July 20[edit]

{{Ifa-stub}} / Cat:Yoruba religion 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 delete; take proposals to /P
Unproposed, cryptically named (no apparent naming link between template and category), no apparent links in category, no equivalent permcat Cat:Yoruba religion, incorrectly named template (Ifa is a dab page; the religion is at Ifá), no indication this could come even close to threshold... Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a simple deletion, rename and upscope the template to {{African-religion-stub}}, losing the ambiguous redirect. The proposed use of the adjective instead of the noun is so that the scope is not Cat:Religion in Africa but rather Cat:African religions (which I just Cfr-ed to a proposed Cat:African traditional religion) regardless of where they are practiced. If there prove enough to be a category, follow the permcat after the CfR has run its course for the rename, otherwise, upmerge. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with a rename/upscope - not too happy with the use of the adjectival form, though you're right that it would remove the possibility of ambiguity. However, this appears to be as much African-American as African per se. Perhaps a smaller upscope to {{Vodou-stub}} (or whatever the currently accepted spelling is) might be a possibility? Grutness...wha? 09:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A rename to Vodou-stub would be like using Lutheranism-stub to mark articles for all stub articles related to Protestantism. Besides, between the intermingling of both traditional and diasporic religions to confuse things, and the fact that even with the wider scope it is doubtful it would get a category of its own at this time, I favor the wider scope. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the Ifá page makes it clear that it is a vodou-related religion - not the comment about the religion in Togo, for instance. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, but Vodou is not the only strand of African diasporic religion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We maybe at slightly cross purposes, then. a rename to voudou-stub is less like using lutheranism-stub for all protestant religion stubs than renaming upscoping it to a new protestantism-stub (my option) rather than a new Christianity-stub (your option). That is, both are rescopes, but my option is simply a smaller upscope - one that avoids the adjective "African". To be honest, though, I'm not overly fussed either way. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been sitting around for awhile, and there are still only 6 articles in this category. As such, I recommend deleting the nominated template and category. However, I'm not sure there is a need to create any Vodou or African traditional religion stubs at this time. If anyone feels the need for that, they can bring it up to WP:WSS/P. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:49, 15 August 2008 (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.

Two Afghan actor/film stub types[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 Afghanistan-film-stub and Afghan-film-actor-stub; do not create Afghanistan-actor-stub

{{Afghanistan-film-stub}}
{{Afghan-film-actor-stub}}

Where to begin? Neither of these was proposed, neither of them do what they say on the label, and neither of them is used on any article. neither feeds into a stub category. Afghan-film-actor-stub is not only misnamed (should be Afghanistan-film-actor-stub) but is splitting a subtype off a type we don't have yet (Afghanistan-actor-stub). Or at least it would be, if it was what it was intending to be. But this isn't anything like a real stub template - it's an image copyright information template!

Afghanistan-film-stub, on the other hand, purports to be a stub for Afghanistan film actors - exactly what the other template would be by its name. It isn't for Afghanistan films at all, despite its title. I think the only way to salvage anything out of this mess would be to delete both of these and create a new, upmerged {{Afghanistan-actor-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSING NOTE: Based on a quick CatScan, I don't see the need for Afghanistan-actor-stub right now, but maybe at some point in the future. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:26, 14 August 2008 (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.

July 21[edit]

{{Kosovo-hist-stub}} / Cat:Kosovo history 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

Unproposed, and the category is likely to remain severely undersized. Also, we now tend to used --history- rather than -hist- for history stub types. Propose rename to {{Kosovo-history-stub}} (keeping current name as redirect) and upmerge. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see comment below. Grutness...wha? 22:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Grtuness proposal but want something clarified. I think we do use hist, not history per {{Africa-hist-stub}}, {{Ethiopia-hist-stub}} and many others. It seems that there is no {{Europe-hist-stub}} though. Perhaps we should come to a consensus on history stubs. I support moving hist to history, as we moved Euro to Europe etc.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm - looks like you're right. There was talk of changing them over, and I was fairly sure consensus was reached on this about a year back - though hunting for it in the WSS pages could be fun. It seems most of the still use -hist-. In that case, this becomes a simple upmerge. Grutness...wha? 22:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the renaming and the redirect, as per Grutness' proposal.--_{A B X}^{T • ៛} 06:20, 21 July 2008 (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.

July 22[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 speedied - RH, the instructions are on Wikipedia:Deletion process alongside the instructions for all the other XfD pages. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Politics stub}}[edit]

Pretty straightforward... an unproposed and malformed duplicate of {{poli-stub}}. Unnecessary, and not even a convention-compliant enough name to be turned into a redirect - delete. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Has not been used - creator is known for inappropriate edits. Please close this - and put the close instructions somewhere! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:06, 22 July 2008 (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.

Cat:Norwegian politician, 18th century birth 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 withdrawn

Punkmorten created this alongside a {{Norway-politician-1790s-stub}} - both, as far as I can see, unproposed. I can see the point of having the template as a continuation of a series - but the category is likely to remain substantially undersized for the foreseeable future. A random sampling of the main category suggests some 40 stubs would be in this category. Upmerge? Grutness...wha? 02:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, per below. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if I created 30 new stubs to fill the stubcat (in addition to the 40+ which already exist)? Punkmorten (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can get this up to the threshold of 60 - either by finding or making more stubs - I'll happily withdraw this nom. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reached 42 through a working session. The stub category would easily exceed 60 entries right now if a {{Norway-politician-1780s-stub}} was implemented, can I do that? Punkmorten (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's probably better proposed at WP:WSS/P, but I doubt there'd be any objections. Grutness...wha? 21:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did, but it says it'll take five days to approve. Punkmorten (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Under circumstances like this, SFD debates aren't closed as soon as the 7-day period is over, since there's clearly work in progress on them. Also, under the circumstances, I'll withdraw this nom now, since it's clear this will reach threshold once the new template is approved (which seems a formality). Grutness...wha? 23:52, 27 July 2008 (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.

{{Engr-stub}} (redirect)[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

From the "to vet" list - this is a little-used redirect to {{Engineering-stub}}, though there's little indication from its name as to what it was for - it certainly isn't a standard stub name. Not used by any editor in over a month (if "related changes" is any judge), and only currently on a very small handful of articles - delete. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 22 July 2008 (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.

{{Judi-stub}} (redirect)[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

From the "to vet" list - this is an unused, ambiguously-named redirect to {{Law-stub}}, though there's little indication from its name as to what it was for. Appears not to be in use at all - delete. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 22 July 2008 (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.

{{Kde-stub}} (redirect)[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

From the "to vet" list - this is a non-standard-name redirect to {{KDE-stub}}. Name seems to be directly in opposition to normal stub naming conventions, and this hasn't been used by any editor in over a month - delete. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 22 July 2008 (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.

{{Mathstub}} (redirect)[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

From the "to vet" list - this is a little-used non-standard-name redirect to {{Math-stub}},. Not used by any editor in over a month, and only currently on a very small handful of articles - delete. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 22 July 2008 (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.

{{Sri-Lanka-bio-stub}} and {{Sri-Lanka-stub}} (redirects)[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

Two others just discovered... non-naming-standard-compliant redirects which were between them used on three articles in total. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 22 July 2008 (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.

July 23[edit]

{{Nursing-org-stub}} / Cat:Nursing organization 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 discussion at Discoveries, upmerge; has held steady at 28 articles for over a year. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (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.

July 24[edit]

{{North-Dakota-county-route-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

Unproposed, and of a type repeatedly rejected in the past. Highways and other roads are simply divided by where they are, not their classification. And in any case, this would both need some form of category (it has none) and would be "NorthDakota-", not "North-Dakota-". Used on just one article. Delete. Grutness...wha? 03:03, 24 July 2008 (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.

July 26[edit]

{{Igbo-stub}} / Cat:Igbo 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 delete

Unproposed, and with several severe problems. Igbo is a tribal grouping from the Bight of Benin region of West Africa, largely but not entirely centred on Nigeria. As such, many of the stubs which could get marked with this would normally be marked with nigeria-stub (or Benin-stub, Cameroun-stub, +c). Furthermore, this covers a wide range of subjects - culture, history, tribal organisation, language, politics - all of which already have better, widely-used stub types. It is also potentially linked with the concept of igboland - something which raises the prospect of a stub for a separatist area (something which is almost always a major problem and thus is almost always opposed). Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 26 July 2008 (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.

July 29[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

G7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Egyptian-radio-bio-stub}} / Cat:Egyptian radio people stubs[edit]

Unproposed, and not likely to come anywhere near threshold any time soon. the parent permccat has (wait for it) no articles whatsoever - it is simply a holding pen for this stub category. So do we have 60 stubs on this subject? Unlikely. What's more, the template is incorrectly named (should be {{Egypt-radio-bio-stub}}). Propose either renaming and upmerging or (perhaps better) deleting outright. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, I just realized that making this stub was a breach even for proposing-new-stubs policy (because it was merely put in one article, right?). I apologize again. I suggest a deletion. Mohamed Magdy (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: tagged for speedy deletion per CSD G7. - Icewedge (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2008 (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.