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; recreation of previously deleted Kurdistan-stub

Same reasons as Assyrian-stub nom on this page. I find this creation disruptive. -- Cat ^chi? 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See also leisure tagging -- Cat ^chi? 19:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is kurdish related article. -- Bohater 19:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

That is not the point of stubs. You do not even understand the basic concept of stubs (what a stub is) -- Cat ^chi? 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Same reasons as Assyrian-stub -- Bohater 19:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly tempted to call for a speedy delete. You applied this to all of four articles, none of which were stubs, only one of which was even close to being a stub, and that one wouldn't get this stub template anyway but rather {{ Iraq-footy-club-stub}} or the like. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • No reason for deletion. We are at the beginning. Help us to expand it. -- Bohater 21:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Expand what exactly? -- Cat ^chi? 21:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Surely there is a lot of kurdish related articles, which need the kurdish stub, see here -- Bohater 21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Why not use a generic one like practically everyone else? Also I can't relate most of those articles to "Kurdish people" in general. They are mostly cities and provinces. Remainder seems to be significant for reasons besides "kurdish" relation. -- Cat ^chi? 21:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - see comments below. Also, same reasons as stated in all the previous discussions of Category:Kurdistan. The Evil Spartan 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy deleted as re-named re-creation of {{ Kurdistan-stub}}. Not useful to stub-sorting, edit-war-magnet, not being used for stubs, insufficient numbers of real stubs for general use, incorrect naming, in fact just about everything which could be wrong with this stub type is wrong. To Evil Spartan, please note that stub categories fulfil entirely different functions to general categories. A stub category may be completely unacceptable even when a general category is perfectly acceptable. The accepatbility or otherwise of a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Kurdistan is thus in no way relevant to this unacceptable and unnecessary stub type. Might I suggest, since this seems to be specifically for use by a WikiProject (WP Kurdistan), that you do what other WikiProjects do - that is, use a talk-page WP-specific template which can be applied to all relevant articles, not just stubs? It would be far moreuseful to WP Kurdistan, and far less of a problem in terms of its unsuitability as a stub type. I suggest you look at some example templates of this type, such as those at the top of Talk:Michael Smither, Talk: Acetylcholine and Talk: Yes It Is. Grutness... wha? 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That is not true. We have also a lot of stubs articles with their own category. All these stubs articles have still their kurdish templates on the discussion site. There is hardly Editwar. I see no reason why Kurdish-stub should be speedy deleted when we have other ethnic stubs such as {{ Roma-stub}}, {{ Jewish-hist-stub}} or {{ Assyrian-stub}}. Only Nationalist users try to remove these kind of templates. -- Bohater 07:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • {{ Jewish-hist-stub}} is perfectly fine as would {{ Assyrian-hist-stub}} or {{ Kurdish-hist-stub}}, it would be used for "history" related articles relevant to "Kurdish history" being a subcat of Category:History stubs. {{ Jewish-stub}} however is a redlink and should stay that way unlike {{ Judaism-stub}}.-- Cat ^chi? 11:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep again, it says "Kurdish", not Kurdistan. Nothing wrong here. Chaldean 02:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That is not the problem here. -- Cat ^chi? 11:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete since this is the recreation of a template previously deleted after intense discussion. Kurdistan is not easily defined and the subject matter is deeply controversial, so such a template will merely result in edit warring. Stick to categories and project banners on the relevant talk pages. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • We talk about Kurdish and not kurdistan. -- Bohater 14:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • That makes it more problematic. See how {{ Turk-stub}} was deleted -- Cat ^chi? 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • What do you mean, "problematic"? Yes, it's a controversial region. So what? Does that mean there can be no Kurdish stubs because of that? You realise you're insulting millions of people by that? EliasAlucard| Talk 08:12, 14 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
        • Stubs are expected NOT to be controversial, as you acknowledge this stub proposal is not problem free and hence may lead to edit wars. If people are getting insulted over the deletion of a stub template they ought to check their priorities. Stub templates should not contain a political message, they are mere maintenance templates. -- Cat ^chi? 12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is absolutely nothing wrong with this stub. No actual reason to delete it. EliasAlucard| Talk 20:35, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
  • It does indeed have quite a lot of problems attached: 1) it doesn't live up to the naming system which is the only thing that makes the sorting of 400,000 stubs possible in the first place, 2) what's worse is that it has a scope breaking through the current system of stub templates, 3) it will doubtless be used in edit warring, something that WP:WSS tries very strongly to keep out of the template space since it can potentially affect a large number of articles. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political causes and this template is definitely not problem free. This is a discussion about the problems / benefits of a potential template, it is not a vote. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Let us wait it, I think there are a lot of users, who will give their statement here. Where is the problem?. -- Bohater 01:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Oh I don't know... The fact that this was discussed before? Or in another way to look at it, was this ever proposed. How is this helpful to the project? -- Cat ^chi? 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - unconvinced by deletion rationale - editors who revert war should be blocked and certainly shouldn't be allowed to dictate content. Template appears comparable to Assyrian-stub or Tibet-stub, either of which could be labelled 'edit war magnets'. Addhoc 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Neither {{ Assyrian-stub}} or {{ Tibet-stub}} were properly proposed. A single user seemed to create both without consensus. {{ Assyrian-stub}} is also nominated for deletion on this very page. Stub types should not provoke an edit war. Once added to an article, a stub shouldn't be removed. It isn't used anywhere (which is less than 70 article minimum). What more rationale should be necessary? -- Cat ^chi? 04:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

White Cat you fight and fight, but somehow nobody listens to you. Is that not odd?-- Bohater 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete; previous discussions have resulted in deletion, nothing is new this time around. Extremely controversial territory here and edit warring about "this is in Kurdistan" "no it isn't" "wait, Kurdistan doesn't even exist" will go on. There is no real way to establish what articles should be tagged with such stubs, and any uses will be controversial; a broader stub category will suffice. I'd also like to request that everyone keep cool: personal attacks like Bohater's comment above are not warranted in a discussion about a stub classification :) -- Editor at Large • talk 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Again, see over there: It is kurdish related Stub, not Kurdistan-stub. It is true, that a official Kurdistan doesn't exist. But this stub should describe kurdish related articles. thanks. -- Bohater 20:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

If Kurdistan doesn't officially exist, who is going to determine what is within its non-existant borders or not? Other than a few articles that refer to the general idea of a Kurdistan there will be nothing to put in it, since cities, towns, buildings of note, etc. cannot be accurately identified as being within "Kurdistan" or not. With so few articles actually fitting the requirements for being classed as a Kurdistan-stub there is no point in having a stub class that will have fewer than the 70 article minimum. -- Editor at Large • talk 06:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Just a reminder to everyone commenting here that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is specifically noted as a very poor argument to use in deletion processes. Grutness... wha? 01:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment I've removed a map of the Kurdish-inhabited region from this template. The fact that is was even there is the first place reminds me way too much about the flag that was used on {{ Kurdistan-stub}}. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:51, 20 June 2007 (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 speedy update

1930s template has hit threshold, and I'll be splitting it out. Update to reflect proper categorization. -- fuzzy510 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• It's a done deal. Alai 20:02, 13 June 2007 (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 keep

Was nominated before which was closed as a non-consensus: WP:SFD/16 January/Assyrian-stub

Other similar noms:

• WP:SFD/26 March/Kurdistan-sport-bio-stub
• WP:SFD/25 February/Kurdistan-stub

• Assyria is a controversial region with non-definitive borders much like Kurdistan. It is being used to tag parts of existing countries (such as Nineveh plains). Many existing sovereign countries do not get to have stub templates. I do not see any reason why "Assyria" needs a stub template as {{ Turkey-geo-stub}}, {{ Iraq-geo-stub}} and etc are not overpopulated prompting such a breakaway.
• With 45 pages it seems underpopulated. Some pages the stub template is used are not even stubs such as History of the Assyrian people.
• The presence of an Assyrian flag itself adds additional controversy. This isn't a country after all (cultural/controversial flags are frowned upon on stub templates as it risks the political POV problems inherent in articles for races that cross international borders).
• It seems to be used to tag anything relevant to "Assyrian" as a term including TV stations: Ishtar TV. It doesnt seem to be topic specific in any way
• I do not believe it was ever proposed.
• Its existence is now used as a rationale to question consensus deletes in the past: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan#Kurdistan Stubs

-- Cat ^chi? 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. You don't have one single valid point to justify deletion of this stub. I can see through your agenda though. You speak Turkish. Turks do not like Assyrians nor do they like Kurds. Yes, the fact that we want our homeland back, that of which was stolen from us by you Turks, and the Assyrian Genocide, is a controversial topic. You want this stub deleted because you don't want us to gain any kind of recognition. You have a problem with our flag? Well that's your problem then. That's not a reason to delete the stub template though. You're just a racist who hates Assyrians. EliasAlucard| Talk 04:06, 12 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain what an Assyrian even looks like... I have no knowledge (not even basic knowledge) on them so it is rather trivial to say I not hate them. The point of stubs is not to give anyone "recognition", they are mere maintenance aids. Also please be civil avoiding WP:NPA violations. -- Cat ^chi? 02:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Right. Don't expect me to believe that. EliasAlucard| Talk 05:23, 12 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
      • Your disbelief is really none of my concern. What I am suggesting is inline with stub sorting practices, guidelines, and policies. -- Cat ^chi? 10:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- Assyria is a controversial region with non-definitive borders much like Kurdistan - this is true, BUT look at the template again; it doesn't say Assyria, it says "Assyrian-related" - that is not contriversial. Notice how the word "Assyrian" is linked to Assyrian people, not Assyria. The same with the Kurdish one I believe used; if the template said "Kurdish" instead of "Kurdistan" then I dont think that wouldn't push NPOV. As for the rest of your concerns; The presence of an Assyrian flag itself adds additional controversy. This isn't a country after all - the Assyrian flag is not a flag of a "region", much like Kurdistan, but an ethnic one. With 45 pages it seems underpopulated. - Assyrian topic may not be as large as some other topics. What is wrong with that? It doesnt seem to be topic specific in any way - the topic is anything related to Assyrian people. Chaldean 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • See Wikipedia:Stubs#Creating stub types#4: "Ideally, a newly-created stub type has 100-300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles". This one had 5 when created according to the previous nom and has 45 entires after nearly 5 months. -- Cat ^chi? 02:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If thats your only concern, then their should not be a problem, since their are well over [ 100 Assyrian stubs] - its just a matter of "we haven't gotten to them yet". Chaldean 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • You want to tag places like Baz, Turkey/ Hakkâri and etc under an Assyrian stub? The article(s) doesn't even mention Assyrians (yet). It is somehow on that list you provided. This arbitrary criteria isn't particularly useful. -- Cat ^chi? 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You want to tag places like Baz, Turkey/Hakkâri and etc under an Assyrian stub? - Umm no I dont, just so that it doesn't offend you. Any other concerns? Chaldean 03:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply
          • It wouldn't "offend" me. However it would be controversial. The list you gave me has lots of entries which it would be controversial to put this template on. -- Cat ^chi? 10:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• It says "Assyrian-related" because the stub template boilerplate text reads "This foo-related article is a stub", and people plug in a term without really considering that the wording might be awkward or unclear. I have no opinion on the stub itself (yet), but I'm not inclined to listen to arguments from someone who verbally attacks a user. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I did not verbally attack the guy. I just stated the obvious. If you know anything about Turkish-Assyrian relations, you'd know that they hate us because we're Christians, and that they want to wipe us out and have tried in the past. EliasAlucard| Talk 05:24, 12 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
    • While I do not support the verbal attacks by Elias, it is note worthy to keep in mind that this nomination for deletion was done so by a Turkish user. Kurdish-Turkish or Assyrian-Turkish related articles are a hot bed of people pushing their own agenda. And after seeing "White cat"'s recent moves [ [1][] - his intentions and motives are pretty clear. Chaldean 03:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Well then, I guess I was right after all. It's quite obvious he doesn't want us to get any kind of recognition or attention at all by deleting templates and stubs related to Assyrians. That said, this template and those user boxes will stay, since his motives are indeed, racist. EliasAlucard| Talk 06:34, 12 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
  • "Assyrian history" would be a valid specific topic. Articles can be categorised under Category:Assyrian history but this is not the point of stubs and instead of categories (see Wikipedia:Categorization for more info on categories). -- Cat ^chi? 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• I oppose the "Assyrian history" suggestion. Assyrian-stub is much better. Not all Assyrian-related stubs are about our history. There are stubs about Assyrians (for instance, Claudia Hanna). Also, Assyrian history would imply that we don't exist any longer. EliasAlucard| Talk 05:28, 12 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
  • Thats ridiculous. We have "United States history" related articles. That doesn't in any way imply that the US ceased to exist. "History" includes recent events such as Sep 11th. Everything is "history" if it happened before present. -- Cat ^chi? 13:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment We do have stubs for stateless ethnic groups, such as {{ Roma-stub}}, so long as they meet the normal guidelines on stub category size and content there is not a problem per se with this stub. However, quite a number these articles are not even up to stub standard. For example, the various one line unreferenced articles on the Assyrian kings that do no more than that should be turned back into redirects for King of Assyria. The stub has also been plastered on several bio articles that based on the minimal content included in the article is such that it does not meet the standard that has been applied to other ethnic groups with similar stubs. Merely being an ethnic Assyrian with a stub article is insufficient to apply this stub. The person has to be notable for something related to Assyria or Assyrian culture. For example, assuming this stub is kept, the stub would be appropriate on the Gabriel Asaad article because he is notable in connection with Assyrian culture. It is not appropriate on the George Issabeg article because he is notable for having represented Iran in Olympic boxing, and at least as far as the article indicates, he is not notable for anything specifically Assyrian. These stubs need some serious cleanup, and I intend to apply it and then see whether there are enough remaining stubs to warrant a stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment about the Comment you said The stub has also been plastered on several bio articles that based on the minimal content. Isn't that what a Stub is meant for? -- MarsRover 06:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

reply Bio-articles get whichever bio-stubs apply - the one for occupation and the one for internationally accepted national division. Assyria-stub is not a bio-stub, and is not an internationally accepted national division. Grutness... wha? 09:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, stubs have minimal content. My point was that based on the content of the stub, there are several stubs is which there is nothing that indicates applying {{ Assyrian-stub}} would be warranted. Caerwine Caer’s whines 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I am looking at Roma-stub's proposal. I am also looking at Category:European ethnic group stubs which itself has a mere 153 entries which is around the "ideal" start number. I am inclined to believe neither Category:Romani stubs (70 entries after a year of existence) nor Category:Scottish clan stubs (21 entries after a year of existence) subdivision is necessary. I also feel Category:Romani stubs is a bit overused as if it were a -bio stub type. Perhaps the deletion of those should be discussed especially for the Scottish clan thing (21 entries? Come on...). -- Cat ^chi? 10:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It doesn't say Assyria, it says "Assyrian-related". -- Bohater 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Is it a -bio stub then? -- Cat ^chi? 16:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - cat, enough with this Assyrian/Kurdistan war. Same reasons given in the last 15 debates. The Evil Spartan 16:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  It is always about me isn't it and never about the topic. I am not waring at all. Take your [baseless] allegations to arbcom. -- Cat ^chi? 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  I have no desire to take it to arbcom, unless these nominations continue. As for the topic: like I said before, same reasons. Individual regions are notable (whether or not they cross national boundries) - for the same reason we have {{ ireland-bio-stub}}, {{ texas-bio-stub}}, Category:Basque people, etc., etc. Seriously, cat, it's nothing personal, but nominating the same thing over and over gets old after a while. The Evil Spartan 00:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  Category:Basque people has NOTHING to do with stub sorting. This isn't a -bio stub and -bio articles get whichever bio-stubs apply - the one for occupation and the one for internationally accepted national division. "Unrecognized cross national boundaries" are beyond the scope of stub sorting practices. They were [repetitively] deleted before with or without my involvement. These nominations will continue as they are more than INLINE with wikipedias guidelines and policies. So please take it to the arbitration committee if you have a personal problem with me. -- Cat ^chi? 12:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Finished going through the articles marked with this. Upmerged some substubs, removed it where it wasn't appropriate. While there are a few articles on which I gave it the benefit of the doubt, there are now 36 articles tagged with this stub, none of which are obviously inappropriately tagged. 36 is a bit small for a stub category, but it does have an associated WikiProject, so it neets the smaller threshold in such cases. Strongly recommend choosing a different icon, or even none at all for the template though. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  I do not see any reason why we can't use the generic stub templates for something this tiny with no prospect to grow. -- Cat ^chi? 19:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  I do not see any reason why we can't use the generic stub templates for something this tiny with no prospect to grow. - My friend, this is your opinion. Just because you are ignorant of the topic doesn't mean its "tiny". It might not be bigger then your Turkey, but please, give it a break. Chaldean 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  I do not care how "large" the topic is. We do not have any other stub type like this one. {{ Jewish-stub}} does not exist. Neither should this one. You can create topic specific stub types relevant to the Assyrians once you have enough articles to do so. This is standard stub sorting practice, not my opinion. For example you can have {{ Assyria-hist-stub}} once you have 70 stub articles on Assyria history. Putting a TV station and some king that lived some 1000 years ago into the same stub category is not helpful to anyone. As expressed earlier this stub type isn't very specific on its target which is the main problem aside from being underpopulated. -- Cat ^chi? 11:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a bad idea. -- Bohater 14:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Why? -- Cat ^chi? 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because there's the {{ Judaism-stub}} stub and that's where you got Jews, Judaism and Jewish related stuff. EliasAlucard| Talk 20:20, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Comment (after edit conflict) : Stub sorting is not based on ethnicity or race, but on specific scopes (normally rather narrowly defined) that must be uncontroversial to avoid edit warring spreading to the stub templates. When WP:WSS considers it necessary to break a large category into smaller units this is done according to either continent or an internationally recognized border. Example: a giant category for "history" would be impossible to use, but a category for German history makes sense due to the size issue, and the scope is relatively easy to define. We've been through this discussion before with similar controversial material (the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", Ossetia, Kosovo, Kurdistan etc.) If we begin deviating from this line, it will be impossible to avoid future templates that will be even more controverisal, e.g. a template for Republika Srpska would be a really bad idea. According to normal practice, articles like Ankawa would be tagged simply with {{ Iraq-geo-stub}}. Otherwise, we might as well also add {{ MEast-hist-stub}}, {{ Ancient-Rome-stub}}, {{ Byzantine-stub}}, {{ Ottoman-stub}} etc. since the region has belonged to many different nations. Surely, such an approach would not be practical. I have absolutely no problem with an {{ Assyria-hist-stub}} (if needs be, using the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Middle Eastern history stubs category if we have 60 relevant articles for this one). The project banner used on talk pages is fine as well, but the stub template cuts through the existing system. I have no idea why {{ Roma-stub}} was approved in the first place, but it looks like a bad idea. We had similar debates regarding Kurdish, Ossetian, and other controverisial topics in the past, so this debate is not a new one. {{ Roma-stub}} might have scraped through because people figured that material about Romas would be very unlikely to stir up controversy. Unfortunately, this is not the case for most issues relating to Iraq or the Middle East. Just for comparison: if we begin tagging material relating to the Balkans based on ethnicity or historical allegiance it would be deeply controversial, and it is a core value on WP:WSS to keep controversy out of the stub templates. Consequently, the flag is also problematic since it seems that it can be interpreted as a political statement. An image of a famous figure from Assyrian history wouldn't pose the same problem. And for the record, smears against other editors based on their ethnicity or religion is completely unacceptable, Elias. Calling White Cat a racist just because he disagrees with you, is not allowed under Wikipedia policies. I suggest you read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and abstain from making similar comments in the future. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Look, you obviously don't know what this is about, and you shouldn't make such snap judgements about why I called him racist. Turkish-Assyrian relations have never been good. The Ottoman Turks killed our people (along with Armenians and Pontic Greeks) in a genocide during World War 1 ( Assyrian Genocide), and the Turkish state denies it to this day. They are strictly against Assyrians, and a future Assyrian state. This guy, obviously has a political agenda. He's Turkish, or at least speaks Turkish and sympathises with Turks. He knows very well what this is about, and it's not because he's concerned about some stubs or political userboxes. [2] <--- Can't you see what this is about? He's got a grudge against Assyrians. He's on some kind of lame flame war against Assyrians and Kurds. It's ridiculous. When I called him racist, I just stated the obvious. The entire reason why he wants these political userboxes deleted, is because he doesn't want people to know about the Assyrian independence, and that's because he doesn't like us. This is comparable to some Nazi running around and deleting Jewish stubs and Jewish political userboxes. But of course, in that case, everyone would have sympathy for the Jews (with good reason), in our Assyrian case, I get blocked for 24 hours by some biased admin for simply telling the truth. I'm not the only one complaining about his war against Assyrians and Kurds. Obviously, he's been at it before. You should give him a warning or something. EliasAlucard| Talk 20:20, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are never allowed on Wikipedia, no matter the reason and no exceptions. It is that simple. If you believe that White Cat is acting inappropriately, use the conflict resolution system, but never attack another person due to his race, religion or ethnicity. Thank you. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The irony here of course, is that I have not even attacked him personally. I'm just pointing out his racist motives. If anything, he's the one attacking my race/ethnicity. I'll take this up with other admins in a moment. EliasAlucard| Talk 21:08, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard' s statement can be confirmed with these atacks -- Bohater 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Are you trying to imply an insult? -- Cat ^chi? 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He's not implying anything. He's just showing how insulting you are by your anti-Assyrian and anti-Kurd campaign. Bohater's link proves me right. I will take this up with other admins and make sure you get a warning, and possibly, a block for racist-behaviour. EliasAlucard| Talk 19:53, 14 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Luke 6:31 . Matthew 5-7 Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep - unconvinced by nomination - we have {{ tibet-stub}} without agreement on the exact borders of the region / country / historical geographic area. Addhoc 00:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That one is also problematic. "without agreement on the exact borders" on your keep rationale is evidence enough. -- Cat ^chi? 05:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete This entire debate seems to indicate that this template is controversial in its current scope, and I don't see any indication that this controversy wouldn't merely increase in the future. Should edit warring begin to spread to the stub sorting work, this might very well result in splinter groups of WP:WSS fighting turf-battles over controversial / grey zone material. Such a scenario will certainly not help improving Wikipedia and it must be avoided. The second-to-last userbox on User:EliasAlucard's userpage is just a case in point why we should avoid stub templates with controversial scopes. {{ Roma-stub}} seems to be the singular exception to the rule that ethnically-based templates are controversial, and I don't like the idea about setting precedent for the creation of even more controversial templates. I have no objection to more specific templates relating to Assyrian history or culture, since narrower scopes normally mean less controversy, nor do I have any problem with project banners being used on article talk pages, nor with the use of "ordinary" categories on Assyrian material, since any controversy over an article using an "ordinary" category can only affect one article at a time rather than the large number of articles that can be affected simultaneously by warring over a template. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Just a reminder to everyone commenting here that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is specifically noted as a very poor argument to use in deletion processes. Grutness... wha? 01:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Closing note I am marking this as "keep" for the following reasons:

1. At threshold
2. The articles have been sorted, so I believe the existing ones are valid to have Assyrian-stub on them
3. Controversial flag has been removed

~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:31, 19 July 2007 (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.