Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/November/29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 29[edit]

{{Chicano-stub}} / Cat:Mexican-American 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 no consensus


From WP:WSS/D. Too small and improper axis. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is meant as a tool for the WikiProject Mexican-Americans. --evrik (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't we delete this before in some form? Strong delete per well-rehearsed arguments; race is not primary notability, and nownot how people should be 'sorted'. If wikiprojects happen to need "other axis" means to track 'their' articles, talk-page templates and categories should be used instead, or plain-old project-space lists. Alai 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has never been deleted before. For those of us who don't visit this page too often, could you please show where these statements are actually wikipedia policy?
      • race is not primary notability and [not] how people should be 'sorted'
      • If wikiprojects happen to need "other axis" means to track 'their' articles, talk-page templates and categories should be used instead
Thanks --evrik (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope you don't mind settling for guidelines and actual practice. I think it's pretty evident that race isn't primary notability: you won't find a guideline stating that people are notable just for having a particular ethnicity, but rather for their being notable as musicians, politicians, etc, and that "just happens" to also be how they're sorted at present. That stub types should follow primary notability follows from WP:STUB#New_stub_categories, in particular the "Would your new category overlap with other categories?" point. The use of talk page templates as an alternative is just a helpful (one can only hope) suggestion: you're not required to do so (just so long as you don't use a stub type). But see Cat:Stub-Class articles for precedent (you'll notice these are organised by specifically by wikiproject). Alai 17:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did manage to bring up a previous SFD discussion from January. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This fits in with the recommedation that the name be shortened, and here are more than 50 articles in th category. As for the last discussion (which i appreciate you finding) there ws only one person that voiced an opinion. --evrik (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Amalas, that was the one I was thinking of. evrik, I think that one the contrary, the opinions of two people are pretty clear, given the detailed exposition of the nominator. Alai 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which permits such categories as long as the placement of people in them is NPOV and verifiable. Not sure, however, whether having such a stub category is a good idea (since stubs are often very weak on both WP:V and WP:NPOV). -- Visviva 01:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've no objection to there being such (permanent) categories: categories can happily be about matters of secondary significance (or tertiary, or indeed about dodecary significance...). But not stub types, since we don't want to have an arbitrarily large number of stub tags per article, and nor do we want stubs to be "apparently sorted" if they're tagged only by ethnic group. (We subdivide people on nationality largely as a matter of practicality, on the basis that USians are more likely to be familiar with their own Z-list celebs than those of the UK, etc, but I don't think the argument fruitfully extends to ethnicity.) Alai 12:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a stub, used by a wikiproject that focuses on a specific ethnic group. What is the problem with the stub being used for articls being tended by that wikiProject? --evrik (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Members of my project team, WikiProject Mexican-Americans use this page. If you are going to delete this stub then I suggest that one of you nominate the following for deletion as well: Ethnicity stubs, Ethnic group stubs, Ethnic group in Africa stubs, Ethnic group in Asia stubs, Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs, Indigenous peoples of North America stubs, Māori stubs, Pakistani ethnicity stubs, Roma stubs, and African American stubs. This list is by no means complete because I got tired. Regarding Alai's argument that USians are more likely to be familar with their own Z-list celebs but that the argument does not extend to ethnicity, lets use the Roma peoples (Gypsies) from the stub list above to illustrate my point. Here goes: Alai, please name 10 notable Gypsies in 60 seconds or less. If you can do it, you are probably a gypsy. Now let's go down the list with each ethnic group, finally reaching Mexican-American. Now, please name 10 notable Mexican-Americans in 60 seconds or less. I can do it with 25 seconds to spare. I am Mexican-American. Like Evik, I don't understand what the problem is. Just because this stub is not useful to any of you doesn't mean you have to delete it. Chicaneo 05:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you bother to look at most of those categories? Those are for ethnic groups, not people by ethnicity. Cat:African American stubs only exists because when we did SFD it, the majority to delete it was evidently insufficient (just as evidently most of WSS look to be giving up the ghost on this one). (That it's tagged with the WPSS-cat and listed on /ST is simply mistaken.) People are not notable for their race, and this is the only-moderately-thin end of a very thick wedge. (Doubtless we'll shortly be seeing all if the multiply-hyphenated-American-stubs in due course.) If Wikiprojects want to introduce arbitrary cross-categorisations like this, then fine, just don't do it unde the aegis of "stub sorting", which it quite blatantly is not. The key word in what I said was "fruitfully": the existence of some editors focused on a particular ethnicity does not supercede people's actual notability, and throwing in a stub tag for every possible axis of classification just leads to template- and category-clutter. Ah well, there's always (non-)deletion review... Alai 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mexican-Americans are an ethnic group. One of the largest in the United States. The ethnicity and race of people is important. If what you have a problem with is the name, then I would support a move from {{Chicano-stub}} to {{Mexican-American stub}}. --evrik (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your use of the term "race" indicates to me that you do not understand that Mexican-Americans are of the White race, that Mexican-American is a type of Hispanic person, and Chicano is a sub-class of Mexican-Americans. These are all "ethnic" distinctions, not "race" distinctions. It seems to me that you are part of the systemic bias that Wikipedia is trying to eliminate. I'm really glad there is always non-delition review. 70.120.70.30 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC) aka Chicaneo - I forgot to log in.[reply]
      • Look at the stub categories that, well, I already suggested you look at. {{ethno-group-stub}} tags articles such as Chagharzai that are about an ethnic group, not as a means of tagging people by ethnic group. I do realize Mexican-Americans are an ethnic group; have I not been sufficiently clear that's why this should be deleted? I have a problem with the "-stub" part of the name, as this scope is entirely inappropriate as a stub type, for the reasons already expounded at some length. If you want a {{Chicano-bio}} talk-page template so as to be better able to track people by their ethnicity, irrespective of what they do for a living or are otherwise notable for, it's fine by me.
      • Chicaneo, your use of miscelleanous cobbled-together accusations indicates to me you've no interest in a discussion of whether this stub type conforms with stub-sorting custom and practice, and are just indulging in the time-dishonoured tactic of the "POV keep vote", with volleys of covering fire. What on earth is the "systematic bias" issue here? Wikipedia doesn't have enough articles on US businesspeople, actors and politicians (of any and all ethnicities), as against the rest of the world? You're correct however, the term "race" is not particularly accurate or useful, but that criticism is a little ironic, given we're discussion a stub-type that's applied to organisations with titles like Católicos por La Raza. Methinks linguistic imprecision isn't confined to . Then again, "white race" is not particularly useful or accurate either (in this discussion or in general), or come to that the term "race" at all. I should more precisely said "ethnicity" -- to exactly the same effect otherwise. Alai 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alai, while I share your concerns that this stub may be applied too broadly, the fact is that ethnicity is a significant factor in American culture, and there are people, organizations, and events whose primary notability come from that fact. Since you seem to feel that ethnicity is something we shouldn't be using for stub types, shall we do away with the Scottish and Welsh stub types, or do you have a geocentric bias when it comes to recognizing ethnicity as a factor in stubbing? OTOH, your concerns are not entirely without merit. Might it be possible that a {{Chicano-activism-stub}} would satisfy the needs of the wikiproject or is its mandate broader than just the people, events, and organizations associated with Chicano civil rights? Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there were any attempt whatsoever to scope and apply this only to people notable primarily in connection with their notability (civil rights activism, artists and musicians known in relation to Chicano culture, etc), it might indeed be defensible in that basis. That it's scoped to include "any Mexican-American whatsoever", applied in that manner, and bald-facedly defended as such makes it fairly clear that it in fact is not. Mexican-American content of first article in this category, quoted in full: "Garcia is of Mexican descent." I see not so much as a hint that intention was ever anything to do with primary notability, much less being confined to same. So far as I know, we're not tagging people with {{Scotland-bio-stub}} and {{Wales-bio-stub}} on the basis of those being "ethnic groups"; those 'nationalities' are admittedly a little fuzzier than those with actual citizenship, but along with other sub-sovereign-state-bio-types like {{HongKong-bio-stub}} (which is somewhat formally better defined in some respects) is at least "citizenship-like" enough to pass the 'own national football team' test. (Perhaps I have a pro-Hong-Kong geographic bias too, though, despite Instantnood's attempts to condition me otherwise?) At any rate, you can hardly quibble with the scoping rationale for {{MSP-stub}} or {{Scotland-royal-stub}}, I'd think. (Mind you, the latter is undersized, and was it ever proposed?) Alai 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alai, Caerwine is correct ethnicity is a significant factor in American culture. I'm glad you recognize that the term "Chicano" is an ethnic group. Regarding your claim that I have no interest in a discussion of whether this stub type conforms with stub-sorting custom and practice, I have not discussed this because I have no solutions. You have lots of objections, and can see that people are arguing against the deletion of this stub, but you have not offered any solutions. Since you seem to be the sub expert with specialities in sorting, typing, and conformity, then offer a solution here. Critizing without offering a solution is non-productive. You argue that I am indulging "POV keep vote" tactics, you argue that there aren't enough articles on political people of any ethnic group, you critize that the use of titles like Católicos por La Raza are a part of the stub, but fail to realize that Catolocios por La Raza is a political association founded to address the concerns of the Chicano community. Do you approve of policicians sorted by ethnicity but not political organizations sorted as such? You tell me that I am using "miscelleanous cobbled-together accusations", but it is you who are using miscellaneous, cobbled-together arguments and criticims. If you can not offer your expert advice and an expert solution, then go ahead and delete it. We will find a way to either get it back or get a similar replacement. Si se puede! Never mind, I see that you did offer a solution. Sorry. Chicaneo 13:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My points about Catolocios por La Raza was simply that it illustrates the popularity of describing Mexican-Americans as a "race", despite the admitted problematic nature of doing so. (I shall go write 'ethnic group' 100 times.) I have no objection to a stub type being scoped in the way CW suggests (people and things 'notable in connection with Mexican-American culture, activism, etc'), which would obviously include just such articles. No failure of realization involved. Rather, what I object to is "sorting by ethnicity", for people who are notable for something else entirely, and "just happen" to be Chicano, such as the aforementioned Aimee Garcia. My 'POV keep' comment was probably not the most helpful, sorry, but arises from frustration with the tenor of this discussion. And on a side-note, am I missing some reason this is being used to tag Filipinos with no stated Mexican connection? (Philip Vera Cruz) Alai 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will be my last post here, but I will come back to view your comments, if you have any. You may have the last word. First, regarding Catolocios por La Raza, The phrase La Raza does not translate "race" it is another way of saying "la gente" and "el pueblo" which translate to English as -> "the people". See also http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_701707079/La_Raza.html and http://www.answers.com/topic/la-raza and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/La+Raza. The single word "raza" does translate to the english word "race" but that is not the reference here. Regarding Aimee Garcia, popular actresses and actors who are Chicano, Mexican-American have never had starring roles in popular sitcoms on American TV prior to The George Lopez Show. Also, there have only been two sitcoms in the history of popular American TV that have depicted the life of Mexican Americans. The first one was in the '70 with an actor who took the stage name Freddie Prince and who starred in a sitcom named Chico and the Man, Freddie's co-star was of Russian/Polish descent and did not play a Mexican-American role. The star Freddie was not even Mexican American, although he played one, he was of Puerto Rican/German descent. The second sitcom occurred approx 20 years later. That sitcom was The George Lopez Show and actually had Mexican American Actors as the stars. There was one other show in the '50 that some mistakenly believe to be about Mexican Americans, named I Love Lucy. That one starred Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. Desie, who was Cuban-American, played a Cuban-American on the show. So the reason Aimee Garcia is there is because she is part of Mexican-American history in the making. Regarding Philip Vera Cruz, he founded the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, which later merged with the National Farm Workers Association to become United Farm Workers. United Farm Workers was co-founded by Cesar Chavez among others. Chavez is considered to be among the greatest civil rights leaders in American history along with Martin Luther King, Jr. (who fought for Black American civil rights) and other people. United Farm Workers, comprised other ethnic groups but mainly was made up of Mexican-American farm workers and was the first influencial minority labor union in US history. Vera Cruz is listed not because he is mistakenly believed to be Mexican-American, but because he was a major player in the history of the Mexican-American civil rights movement. For more information about the history of Mexican-Americans please see History of Mexican-Americans. As another person pointed out in a previous post, ethnicity is very important in American society. Thanks for "listening" to this very long post, Chicaneo 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been awhile and it seems that this hasn't been sorted out yet. Here's what I see:

  • Delete
    • Amalas (as nominator), per size & improper axis
    • Alai, per race not being primary notability
  • Keep
  • Other

So, basically, opinions are all over the place. Based on this, my personal suggestion would be to go with a WikiProject talk page template to track these stubs and other articles related to the project. That would allow for easy tracking for the WikiProject as well as keep POV out of stub categories. If there are any more opinions, please let me know. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:49, 11 December 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.

{{Iceland-airline-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


From WP:WSS/D. Waaaay too small. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - you gotta be kidding me. -Patstuarttalk|edits 13:57, 6 December 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.

various <place>-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 keep Armenia, Korea; upmerge Croatia, Serbia


From WP:WSS/D.

I recommend either deleting all or upmerging templates. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge Croatia, Serbia, and Korea, keeping the templates. Keep Armenia, as at 53 article while it's a bit light, it's not so light that I would have brought it to SFD. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have to agree with you about Armenia, but I thought I'd just keep all the -hist stubs from /D together. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Caerwine said. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per CW. Alai 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Armenia and Korea, the latter currently has 67 articles -- an anon has been busy populating it -- and could easily have 600. Also has potential for synergy with the newly-formed Korean history working group. Weak delete for the others, which do not seem to have been so lucky. -- Visviva 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep Korea per Visviva. Armenia should be kept as well, and Crotia and Serbia should be upmerged.--MerkurIX(이야기하세요!)(투고) 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep all - they're very useful, IMHO, even as a category. Even the Croatia-hist stub has about 70-something uses. how is that not helpful? - Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Most of the recent additions were either not stubs or miscategorized biography stubs. Biographies never get a history stub for being biogries of historical people. After resorting the category, the 71 stubs are now back down to 33 stubs, too small for a category of its own. The template should be kept, and if someday it has 60 or more stubs associated with it that actually should have it, then and only then should it have a category of its own. Caerwine Caer’s whines 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all <country>-history stub-types. As time goes by, the history of every country grows. There will be more topics to write about. No point deleting and re-creating the history stub-type as Wikipedia's coverage grows. Someone may want to contact the specific country's portal/wikiproject to find out why the stub-type is under-used. A lack of personnel maybe ? Then, we should be giving them a hand rather than removing a useful tool. -- PFHLai 07:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with User:PFHLai --AW 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RECAP:
  1. Keep {{Armenia-hist-stub}} / Cat:Armenian history stubs
  2. Keep {{Korea-hist-stub}} / Cat:Korean history stubs
  3. Keep {{Croatia-hist-stub}} and recat to Cat:Croatia stubs
  4. Delete Cat:Croatian history stubs
  5. Keep {{Serbia-hist-stub}} and recat to Cat:Serbia stubs
  6. Delete Cat:Serbian history stubs

If there are no objections to this, I will close this later today. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:48, 6 December 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.

{{Free software-stub}} / Cat:Free software 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 no consensus re:deletion, rename template


From WP:WSS/D. Not really the axis we want to split on, methinks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. True, this axis is orthogonal to the type-of-software axis, but it's parallel to the existing ecosystem/platform axis, in that free software constitutes a cohesive ecosystem and platform distinct from the proprietary platforms.
  2. Potential for wide breakout, with later subsplit into Linux, KDE, LAMP, etc.
  3. Identification of expertise; a lot of contributors would rather (and are better placed to) contribute to articles on free software programs (etc.) than proprietary articles.
For the above, Keep. EdC 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for #2, there already is a {{Linux-stub}}, {{KDE-stub}}, and even a {{GNOME-stub}}. However, these all fit nicely into say, Cat:Operating system stubs or Cat:Software stubs, based on functionality. We don't really need to add another layer declaring whether or not something is free. A computer expert is going to be more likely to be an expert in one type of software (graphics software, database software, etc) rather than in all types of free software. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides the axis concern, there's the size concern. There are less than 30 stubs despite having been around for over 8 months. As for EdC's point #3, I'd say that would apply more to a potential Cat:Open source software stubs than this one. While there is considerable overlap between free and open source, they ain't the same and I doubt the existence of much available expertise on non-open source but free software. Still would be the size problem tho. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no closed source software that is also free, as "free" licenses require that the source be available. There are, however, non-free open source programs. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, what is the difference between Windows and Linux. If free source, we can use the free source tag. If other difference, we can use the tag with other meaning . But there is a big difference between this operating systems. --Mac 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 20:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any news on this one? I see 1 keep and 1 delete other than me, so I'd like to get some more opinions on this. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On size, I'm certain this is readily populable, based on number-crunching I did a while ago, and besides which, it has three sensible subcats (plus Cat:Linux distribution stubs -- huh?). On axis, I tend to agree it's indeed not ideal. Perhaps we should slightly rescope this to be "software for free (and/or open) platforms" (given that there's commercial software for free platforms, and indeed free software for commercial platforms). On the whole, put me down as a fence-sitter. Alai 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could see a cat named Cat:Free or open source software stubs, but what about the template? Keep as {{free-software-stub}}? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (oh, and by keep, I mean rename to remove spaces) ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't suggesting that would necessarily be the name of the category, I was just hedging my bets given the earlier discussion (the distinctionsseems to be minimal in practice). I've no objection to a de-spaced version of the current template. Alai 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Due to no major objections to deletion, I think I will just list this (after renaming to remove spaces, of course). ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure it's necessary to list every type that we 'fail to delete'. At the risk of possible "process-churning", we might want to consider (re-)listing no consensus SFDs at /D. (Then again, as nominator, that's partly in your own hands.) Alai 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent)*sigh* I can see what you're saying, but the whole point of all these SFDs was to clear out /D. I think a lot of these are going to end up with "no consensus" and I'm just not sure where to go from there. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not suggest in every case, just where the discussion has a rather murky conclusion where further discussion may seem likely to be of use. But at any rate, I think it's not a good idea to list everything on the basis of there not being a consensus to delete it, rather than there having been a consensus to create it in the first instance. Alai 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see what you are saying now. That makes sense. I'll just close this and keep the listing on /D (no need to re-list because it's already there). Thanks! ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:04, 7 December 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.

{{Teletubbies 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


Need I say more? Okay, I will. Used on two of the (seemingly) only four articles on Teletubbies on wikipedia. There is no Cat:Teletubbies, but that's presumably okay because this stub template doesn't have a dedicated category either - it's got no category at all in fact. Not to mention the space-ridden name. Never prposed, funnily enough. if it had been, I don't think we'd have had such a template. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/November/29&oldid=1084292402"