Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/November/11

November 11

refactoring of Charitable/Philanthropic organization stubs

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 keep phil template/cat (and possibly clarify scope), redirect charity template, delete charity cat

Looking at the stub type list, we somehow seem to have both {{charity-org-stub}} (Category:Charitable organization stubs) and {{philanthropy-org-stub}} (Category:Philanthropic organization stubs) , which seem to me to cover almost identical ground. Surely we don't need both? I propose deleting one of Category:Charitable organization stubs or Category:Philanthropic organization stubs and redirecting one of the two templates, so that these two types are merged. No real preference, though perhaps the philanthropic one has a slightly wider coverage and so should be the keeper. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The somehow being this proposal. The scopes seem significantly different to me (see the permcats), if the issue is size, and the phils aren't separately viable (I haven't re-checked), certainly keep both templates, without redirection. Alai 05:31, 12 November 2006 (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.

Template:Nagorno-Karabakh-stub / Category:Nagorno-Karabakh stubs

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

What follows is the discussion as it was occurring at WP:TFD - it is quite clear from some of the discussion that the people commenting were unsure of stub guidelines as regards disputed territories, which is that they should not have stubs. Furthermore, no discussion had taken place as regards the category which this template fed into, and as such, there could be a horrible refactoring of discussion if it was added in at this stage. As such, I've preserved the comments below which should be taken into consideration in any debate, rather than simply allowing the debate to take its course and potentially causing problems if the result was delete as regards the un-mentioned category. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 still in progress, with addition of category, on proper process page

Nagorno-Karabakh is not an internationally recognised state and this template is controversial and divisive. Grandmaster 13:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Republic of China (Taiwan) is not widely recognized as a state and yet is has a template, therefore state recognition can not be used to determine whether or not a template for a state should exist. Although it's true that Nagorno-Karabakh is not widely recognized as an independent nation, it has been a de facto independent nation since 1993 (over 13 years): it has its own military and administration, independent of Azerbaijan. In 1991, the population voted for independence in a democratic referendum and they got it. Given that Nagorno-Karabakh has its own article, recognized flag and coat of arms in Wikipedia, then I see no reason why a stub for Nagorno-Karabakh should be deleted. As long as a Nagorno-Karabakh stub helps in organizing data, we have good reason to keep it.Serouj 13:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan has some recognition, NK has none whatsoever. NK is not a recognized state and it does not exist de-jure. Grandmaster 13:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that most people who want to delete this stub are Azeri (Grandmaster, Ulvi I.). Folks, we're not debating here whether or not Nagorno-Karabakh is a legitimate state or not; Let's keep political/ethnic debates out of this, as this isn't the right medium for that debate. Let's be objective: our goal is to help organize human knowledge in Wikipedia. Given that the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh is a human institution, being able to organize articles related to this institution via a stub for it helps attain the grander goal of Wikipedia: organization of humanity's knowledge. Thanks.Serouj 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I would not want to delete this without deleting stub templates for other unrecognised states. - Francis Tyers · 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other such templates? Grandmaster 13:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian stubs is one such template; Note that the State of Palestine is in the Category of Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states.Serouj 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why to drag stub-sorting into POV disputes? There seems to be no size-based rationale and even if it reaches the required threshold, a further point of dispute would be to choose a proper parent category. This is potentially divisive. I remember similar templates were proposed for Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Abkhazia and both of them failed.--Kober 14:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kober, define "size-based rationale" please. I don't follow your logic. Thanks.Serouj 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Northern Turkish Republic of Cyprus" and "Taiwan" have been subject of international law, and is recognised with its leadership, while "NKR" has never been subject of international law. The conflict and the international dispute is between Republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is the Presidents and Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia that meet to discuss the resolution of the conflict, not the head of "NKR". Thus "NKR" cannot exist with its own stub here as an independent unit.

--Ulvi I. 19:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a debate of Nagorno-Karabkh's status as an independent republic. The real question is, "Does having a Nagorno-Karabakh stub help organize data in Wikipedia?" I think the answer is "yes," and therefore I support having it. We've got a Wikipedia article describing the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, its administration, its flag, coat of arms, etc, and I see no mark of any kind on that article that the contents of the article is "Disputed." A stub for this geographical and political entity follows...Serouj 21:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the stub says "Nagorno-Karabakh related." No one denies the existence of a region named Nagorno-Karabakh, therefore there is no POV hidden in this stub. What's wrong with stub-sorting about it? --Golbez 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, except for the flag... if that's a problem then replace it with a map, but that's not something for TfD to handle. --Golbez 23:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NK exists, regardless of its status. Therefore a stub should exist as well.--Eupator 23:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image should probably be changed then to make it more neutral. Khoi khoi 01:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Forgot to vote myself. Grandmaster 05:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other keeps †he Bread 05:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The template is not only controversial and divisive, but also not helpful. It opens the possibility for every secessionist, would-be-secessionist, and simply any ordinary regions to have its own stub, which they will use as a flag for themselves.--Tabib 15:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, we've had a Category for Nagorno-Karabakh since October, 2004. If anything, having a Category for a "separatist state" is more significant than having a stub. As I mentioned previously, *any* human institution (separatist, revolutionary, or not) not only deserves, but also requires space in Wikipedia, as it's the collection of human knowledge. I am seeing the same arguments being regurgitated by the same types of people: "divisive," "controversial," etc... The truth of the matter is, it's not "divisive" and the proof of that is the Category on Nagorno-Karabakh, even the very article on Karabakh.
Also, Karabakh can no longer classify as a separatist state, because separatists are groups of people who are actively seeking autonomy (see the separatism article); We all know that Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians have already gained their independence. Therefore, the right word is de facto independent state. I've showed above that Palestine, also a de facto independent state, has a stub. It follows that Nagorno-Karabakh may have a stub. I have yet to see a logical argument to remove this stub.Serouj 19:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. California isn't an internationally-recognized nation, either, yet it has its own stub tag, {{California-stub}}. The flag argument is a poor rationale for deletion. It can easily (and has, in fact) been changed to anything you want if you think it's not neutral. Neil916 (Talk) 19:14, 10 November 2006 (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.

Strong delete for several reasons:

as per precedent on disputed territories and unrecognised countries - compare the delete decisions for Ossetia, Chechnya, TRNC, Transdniestria et al in the past;
for size reasons - there are fewer than 40 articles in the category, nowhere near the threshold requirement for a stub category - and several of those are not stubs;
for permcat reasons - there is no Category:Nagorno-Karabakh, and as such the stub category should not exist. There is, however a Category:Nagorno Karabakh, so iff the vdecision is to keep this, it will need renaming.

To answer some of the specific comments above:

California is a recognised subnational unit, and it is those that are used for naming stub categories.
Stub types for other similar regions have always been deleted in the past with only two exceptions - those for Taiwan, which is internationally recognised by several nations and has been internationally recognised by many others in the past, and Palestine, a stub type that was created after long, hard debate with the agreement of wikipedia editors from both the Palestinian Territories and Israel and which even so has been the subject of considerable controversy since (including SFD debates).
Whether having a Nagorno-Karabakh-stub helps organise articles on Wikipedia is a moot point. the number of stubs contained within the category is below the threshold number considered optimal for sorting articles, and the categories which has been split from were within the optimal range. As such, having this as a separate stub category may well cause more effort for editors.

Grutness...wha? 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the name: the permcat seems to depart from the name used in the main article, so I've nominated it for renaming. Alai 05:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per the arguments presented by Grutness. This template is controversial, it fails the criteria for size, and it will strongly empty Category:Armenia stubs and/or Category:Azerbaijan stubs, both of which are hardly full. I have sorted the South Caucasian material several times and it was pretty problematic just finding enough material to argue for even "one" template per country. These categories are still pretty empty and both are way below the number of articles normally required to split a category in two (500-800 stub articles is a good guideline). The political side of this issue has been discussed for many other entities in the past and the short story is that Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh / Qarabaq is a controversial entity and we should only have stub templates for internationally recognized entities that we can be pretty sure will not lead to neverending revert wars / stub wars. Having controversial templates around presents a strong risk for such a scenario; One editor will no doubt add a flag that another editor considers controversial and / or add such a template to some article(s) others will consider improper to include. Both situations have a high risk of ending in stubs being continuously added to / removed from articles and templates being changed back and forth between a flag version, a no-flag version and possibly other versions as well. Precedent has so far been to avoid any such situations completely. We shouldn't have distinct templates for any hotspot in the world, including Abkhazia, Chechnya, Republika Srpska, Kosovo, TRNC etc. etc. I have never been a great fan of both {{Palestine-stub}} and {{Taiwan-stub}} either. Although the situation is different for the latter two, both still smack of the same problem. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but only on grounds of size. The idea that we can avoid controversy by fiat is fallacious, soliphistic, nonsense. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, now that I am aware of the precedent and special criteria relating to stub tags, disregard my earlier comments during the TFD discussion. Neil916 (Talk) 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikimedia is not a propaganda machine nor a battleground, if we keep this then we are gonna have to accept stubs from other unregonized territories as, Northern Turkish Republic of Cyprus, Taiwan, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etcetc. NKR is not regonized in the world. 85.146.213.29 20:18, 14 November 2006 (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.