Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/12

This is part of Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

12 (one sentence or less)

 * "Any article that contains one sentence or less of text (not counting external links or category tags)." should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.


 * This is a replacement for criterion A1, which is proposed to be deprecated above, and which presently reads "very short articles with little or no context".
 * Even if the topic would be encyclopedic, the single sentence isn't going to help in writing the full article.
 * Recent examples include Platinum single (which read "more than 400.000 copies in USA") and Medical Academy of Latvia (which read "medical").
 * If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

[ vote] – discuss

Votes
'''This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).'''

Support

 * 1) A и D я 01D TALK EMAIL July 4, 2005 15:55 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes Kappa, a good deal of information can be included in one sentence. However, surely there are more things you can say about a person/place/thing, if they're notable. Hermione1980 4 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)
 * Only if no-one speedy deletes it before I see it. Actually there are plenty of notable king and emperors about whom the only easily accessible information is regal dates and accession. Kappa 4 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)
 * 1) If an editor can't be troubled to write more than one sentence, I can't be troubled to keep it. Denni ☯ 2005 July 5 02:48 (UTC)
 * 2) If someone wants to write a stub and use appropriate template...well and good. If someone merely wants to write a substub and use relevant template...well and good. A vague one line that might barely amount to a definition, perhaps not a complete sentence isn't an article. Nor is it a stub IMO (baby article?); nor, even a substub (embryonic article?). Several suggested below that one sentence or less articles might inspire them to write an article; as might the complete absence of coverage and article. The Community Portal has a large list of Open Tasks that already provide inspiration; directing energies to those benefits the community. Actually, after quickly checking I see the substub template itself is gone - the original discussion seems pretty relevant to this proposal too. Whitehorse1 | July 29 2024  (UTC)
 * 3) * Whitehorse1's 250th contribution was at (or after) 07:33, 6 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) --Porturology 6 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)Support
 * 5) * Porturology's 250th contribution was at (or after) 12:28, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)
 * 7) Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
 * 8) Support.   ral  315  July 7, 2005 05:31 (UTC)
 * 9) What Denni said. Besides, many editors choose to improve articles that have potential.  <> Who ? ¿ ?  7 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutralitytalk July 9, 2005 09:40 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Gamaliel 17:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support --Mysidia 13:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) * Mysidia's 250th contribution was at (or after) 18:25, 9 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support EdwinHJ | Talk 19:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) There's always WP:VfU for the inevitable errors that will creep in. We need something to increase the throughput of VfD; better to fix a few errors in a quick system than use a slow, expensive (in time/energy) system. Noel (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Newbies tend to assume the "X is " part is taken for granted, as in other enclcopedias, so they often don't write a complete sentence. Also plenty of valid information can be fitted into a single sentence, e.g., "Guangxu was emperor of China from 1871-1908 and launched the Hundred Days' Reform in 1938." Kappa 4 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
 * 2) Consider the first version of The Commodore. It was actually two sentances, but could have been one with slightly differente wording. I recently expanded it from a stub to a full-length article, which i might not have done if the stub hadn't been there. DES 4 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)
 * 3) Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:56 (UTC)
 * 4) I object primarily because the wording of this item was added by User:Radiant! without discussion prior to this vote being opened.  -- Netoholic @ 4 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Archive. The use of the "one sentance" criterion was specificvally mentioned by several people in that discussion. DES 4 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. A lot of valid stubs can be one sentence long.  I think that "short, no context" covers a lot more stuff that should be speedied.  Note that I would support this proposal iff proposal A1 passes. JYolkowski // talk 4 July 2005 20:49 (UTC) (edited JYolkowski // talk 5 July 2005 00:57 (UTC))
 * 2) There is plenty and content and context in some 1-sentence articles. humblefool® 4 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose. A lot of one-sentence articles do become validly long articles.  See this version and the current version of Inaccessible Island, for example.  I built that article up from (almost) nothing! --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
 * 4) Some of the best content on Wikipedia started off as a one-sentence page. David | Talk 5 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
 * 5) * Some of the best ones also started out as redirects. In fact, a side-effect of this badly-considered CSD proposal would be to practically obsolete WP:RFD. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)
 * 6) Even the stubbiest of stubs can become a featured article someday. If the topic is valid, then size doesn't matter. NatusRoma 5 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)
 * 7) The single sentence may not help in writing an article, but it might inspire it. The really bad single-sentence articles that this is intended to catch would likely fall under another criterion. -Splash 5 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)
 * 8) Too strict. &mdash; Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)
 * 9) mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)
 * 10) Simple metric isn't a good idea. "Deep Throat was Mark Felt." That's one sentence. Lots of info. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
 * 11) Prefer existing criteria. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 5 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)
 * 12) I've seen some veeery loooong sentences... I would prefer a 150 minimum character requirement for a non-redirect article. -- BD2412 talk July 5, 2005 04:10 (UTC)
 * 13) Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)
 * 14) Too many valuable stubs might be subject to death before having a chance to expand. Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)
 * 15) Those articles need cleanup or Vfd JoJan 5 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)
 * 16) sentences can expand. VfD will allow the creator to expandPeregrineAY July 5, 2005 10:20 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. A single sentence can still have good and useful information. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 5, 2005 14:32 (UTC)
 * 19) I consider the example content of the Platinum single to be a good stub and question its deletion. See also Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)
 * 20) Existing criterion is better — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)
 * 21) Absolutely not. Absurd.  Great articles can grow out of single sentences.  The first article I worked on began as a single sentence.  Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. It's well meant, but there can be a lot of good stuff in a single sentence.  When you add categories and stub tags, it's entirely possible to have a single-sentence good stub. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 5 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose.  Arbitrary.  What if it's a moderately long sentence, with lots of useful information? Factitious July 6, 2005 00:18 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose. Let stubs grow, or, if un-growable, let that be decided by VfD. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  6 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. If it is notable, then it needs to be expanded, if it isn't, it'll go to VfD or fall under another speedy. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:39 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose too arbitrary. Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose. Kappa expresses my thoughts exactly on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  6 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose as per Kappa. Sietse 6 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. Length of an article has no bearing on its validity as a stub.  It is not a valid quality judgement for speedy delete   Un focused 6 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose. This seems to allow valid stubs to be deleted, look at London Eye then, and London Eye now. -- Joolz 6 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose, stubs are, erm, stubs, not speedy targets. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. Substubs are meant to be expanded, not deleted. Quite a fair number of excellent articles started out as a one-sentence article. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
 * 33) Strong: Wikipedia is not paper and is meant to be expandable. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose. Arbitrary and bizarre. The sentence is a very poor objective measure of content. Nohat 7 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
 * 35) Not needed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose. Nohat said it best.  Arbitrary and bizarre. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:33 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose too arbitary. - Aaron Hill July 7, 2005 09:10 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose I oppose this on the basis that many existing, useful stubs would suddenly be candidates for SD -Harmil 7 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose as Fuzheado and others. Pcb21| Pete 7 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose. Substubs are valuable.   &mdash;thames 7 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose, use stub tags. Gazpacho 8 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose per Deathphoenix. --Angr/undefined 8 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose. Expand good topics, consider others on a case by case basis. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)
 * 44) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:24 (UTC)
 * 45) 24 at 9 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)
 * 46) * 24ip's 250th contribution was at (or after) 18:20, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose. These should be expanded, not deleted. TheCoffee 21:34, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose. One very good sentence on an encyclopedic subject can be a good start. Really bad/pointless sentences would be speediable under other criteria. -R. fiend 21:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose. Many of these should be expanded, not deleted. --Canderson7 18:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose. Lack of byte count does not always indicate lack of meaningful content. There are some very good one sentence stubs and some very bad articles that ramble on forever. --Allen3 talk 21:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 51) Never. Should not be deleted, let alone speedied. Grace Note 02:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 53) Dsmdgold 15:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose - ZeWrestler 15:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose Of course a single sentence helps. Many long articles started as a single sentence. Most people are more likely to contribute to an existing article than to jump the psychological hurdle to start a new one. CalJW 17:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) Pointless as policy, because it's easily circumvented. --MarkSweep 01:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 57) Shanes 06:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 58) Oppose covered by A1 Dan100 (Talk) 09:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 59) CSD A1 covers this better. Short articles aren't neccesarily contextless. Prefer context to be included in the criterion. - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose. Arbitrary and way too strict. Can result in deletion of factual, verifiable and encyclopedic content well worthy of expansion. / Alarm 18:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 61) Oppose wth do we have stubs for? Inigmatus 18:23, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 62) * Inigmatus's 250th contribution was at (or after) 17:21, 12 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 63) Oppose. A single sentence can be a valid stub and convey a lot of information.  A lot of these might survive even a vfd and should certainly not be speedied. DS1953 18:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 64) Feydey 23:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 65) A very large fraction of Wikipedia's articles started with a single sentence. There are whole encyclopaedias where most entries are just one sentence. David Remahl 03:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 66) Oppose: I have seen (and have wrote) sentences greater than four lines of typed text that provide a plethora of information. While most sentences at this length may be considered a run-on, it does not mean that a run-on doesn't contain information, and therefore be speedily deleted. IanManka 06:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 67) * IanManka's 250th contribution was at (or after) 06:55, 13 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 68) Oppose Lectonar 10:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 69) Oppose- In my opinion, it is not the size but the potential that matters. Further, one sentence may be of 2 words, and another one sentence may be of 200 words. So, any generalization about this is not a safe policy.--Bhadani 18:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 70) Oppose; Every stub deserves a chance. Ghost Freeman T / C 22:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 71) Oppose, quite strongly. This article, among countless others, I'm sure, would not exist had this criterion been in place at the time of its vfd nom.  Vfds can be powerful motivators. -  Jersyko   talk  03:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 72) Oppose. Information content should count, not numbers of sentences. --MarSch 13:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 73) Oppose. Stubs may be meaningfull and are often expanded. Casito⇝Talk 03:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 74) Opppose. Just the platinum example alone shows that this should not pass.  That gives useful information that is the essence of the topic.  Obviously, more details should be included.  However,    it is a good start.  The Latvia one is covered under A1. (plus there could be massive runons that only need copyediting.)Superm401 | Talk 13:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 75) Oppose- One sentence can be a good start for an article. Many good articles were started out with one sentence. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)