Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/August/2
August 2
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 Category upmerged.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need for this category. It should be merged with its parent, Category:Texas university stubs, as were related categories for {{TAMU-stub}} and {{TexasTech-stub}}, and deleted. There are presently 72 pages in the University of Texas at Austin stubs category. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support - though 72 is sufficient for a category. Didn't this one come up here recently? Grutness...wha? 00:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the 72 articles are bios. This category was mentioned in the discussion regarding the deletion of the Texas Tech and Texas A&M stubs. It was decided to keep both of those stubs but put the articles into the category Texas university stubs. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most bio-stubs related to a specific university should more sensibly have a US-academic-stub or a stub connected to their field of study - academics move from university to university too often to get a specific university stub. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, upmerge tempalte and remove bio-stubs (academics and sportsmen?) Waacstats (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2009 (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.
Category:Soil stub candidates
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. -Mairi (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Soil stub candidates to Category:Soil stubs
- Nominator's rationale: consistency -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Close and relist at SFD IIRC, this should be done at WP:SFD 76.66.192.64 (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My purpose in establishing this category was to see if the project had sufficient articles to justify this stub. It clearly does not. This category should be emptied and then guidelines at WP:SFD followed. Paleorthid (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin note: Moved from 2009 JUL 25 CfD for closing here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support deletion of current name - but don't think a new Category:Soil stubs is necessary. With only five stubs listed, and a threshold for stub categories (even if there were a WikiProject Soil science or similar) of 30 - 60 if there's no WikiProject, a separate category seem unnecessary. What's more, there's no stub template connected with it, so it shouldn't exist. Paleorthid, if you wanted to see whether there were enough stubs for a category, you should have proposed one at WP:WSS/P, and we'd have used stub-finding tools to see how many suitable stubs existed. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. This discussion may need to be informed by the fact that {{soil-stub}} exists, has a history, and redirects to {{soil-sci-stub}}. Prior discussions about {{soil-stub}}: > Initial discussion at Soil WikiProject June 2006 > 1st Proposal June 2006: Approved after soil-stub transitioned to soil-sci-stub. > 2nd Proposal September 2007: The result of the debate was redirect to soil-sci-stub. (Grutness, you may recall this?) In December 2007 I created this category in an effort to see if there was any continuing interest, particularly on the part of drillerguy. It was a very informal effort, perhaps more appropriate for either drillerguy or paleorthid user space. To be clear, I never considered this a formal stub category. Regardless, I should have emptied the category in mid-2008 when it became obvious that there was no user interest. --Paleorthid (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I remembered something to do with soil stubs before, but couldn't remember the details. FWIW, a better idea would have been to simply list article names on a user subpage (e.g., User:Paleorthid/Soil stubs), rather than creating a category. That way it doesn't affect category space and allows you to add and remove article names at will. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. This discussion may need to be informed by the fact that {{soil-stub}} exists, has a history, and redirects to {{soil-sci-stub}}. Prior discussions about {{soil-stub}}: > Initial discussion at Soil WikiProject June 2006 > 1st Proposal June 2006: Approved after soil-stub transitioned to soil-sci-stub. > 2nd Proposal September 2007: The result of the debate was redirect to soil-sci-stub. (Grutness, you may recall this?) In December 2007 I created this category in an effort to see if there was any continuing interest, particularly on the part of drillerguy. It was a very informal effort, perhaps more appropriate for either drillerguy or paleorthid user space. To be clear, I never considered this a formal stub category. Regardless, I should have emptied the category in mid-2008 when it became obvious that there was no user interest. --Paleorthid (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support deletion based on the fact that we already have Category:Soil science stubs
- 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.