Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/A1

This is part of Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

A1 (deprecate)

 * Speedy deletion criterion A1 should be deprecated.


 * Presently, the criterion reads "Very short articles providing little or no context."
 * The problem is that this criterion is subjective, and tends to vary wildly in application.
 * Several of the proposals below are intended as replacements.
 * 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 removing A1

 * 1) A и D я 01D TALK EMAIL July 4, 2005 15:46 (UTC)
 * 2) Replace it with new criterion number 11. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
 * 3) Conditional on others passing to provide objective criteria that make this subjective criterion redundant.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 07:31 (UTC)
 * 4) Support iff criterion 11 or 12 passes. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 5, 2005 13:42 (UTC)
 * 5) Replace it with the others.  Rossami (talk) 5 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)
 * 6) Support iff the test run proposal passes. Factitious July 5, 2005 22:58 (UTC)
 * 7) Support.   ral  315  July 7, 2005 05:18 (UTC)
 * 8) Support iff criterion 11 passes.  <> Who? ¿ ?  7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
 * 9) Support.  Too subjective.  Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Too subjective, open to abuse. Klonimus 8 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)
 * 11) Support removing. WAAAAAAAY too subjective. Ketsuban (is 1337) 9 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)
 * 12) Support removal -- this is applied very subjectively (and I'm a fairly moderate deletionist). Cleduc 17:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support much too vague. CalJW 17:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support bad law, no spirit and no definition. Wikipedia is not: a bureaucracy, judiciary or democracy.  Fifelfoo 03:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Just because it's "not abused that much" isn't a reason to support a potentially abusive rule. I instead support mandatory stubs for A1 articles, and a waiting period for deletion. This is one rule that should be removed in favor of clearer speedy delete rules, and decreased VFD and speedy delete requests.Inigmatus 14:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) * 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) 17:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Put a better one in its place. Superm401 | Talk 04:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose the removal, and thus keep A1

 * 1) JYolkowski // talk 4 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
 * 2) --Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)
 * 3) Pburka 5 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to accomplish. If other specifications are passed, then they will automatically deprecate this criterion. If they are not, then simply saying "Deprecate!" will not make things more orderly. NatusRoma 5 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
 * 5) My concern is the same as NatusRoma's. Denni☯  2005 July 5 01:44 (UTC)
 * 6) mikka (t) 5 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)
 * 7) The replacement criteria do not replace this. &mdash; Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
 * 8) Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong oppose. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 5 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, and by the way, this whole vote is verbose, covoluted and confusing. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:39 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's an exercise in querulousness - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
 * 1) Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Current criteria is important. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
 * 3) Current voting formally inconsistant - what does voting sup/opp on this category mean when compared to voting sup/opp? This structure needs some clean-up. Aaron Brenneman 5 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)
 * 4) *Good point. The proposal is to deprecate A1, so supporting that means you think A1 should go. I've clarified the section headers. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 5, 2005 09:14 (UTC)
 * 5) *Note that Aaron Brenneman's first edit is July 5. Does not meet the suffrage criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!)  8 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - it's not clear whether this can/should be deprecated as long as we don't know which of the other criteria will pass. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)
 * 7) Even if the others pass, they don't completely replace this, and the small amount of subjectivity it allows is sometimes useful. -Splash 5 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 5, 2005 14:20 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. This is more useful than 11 or 12. Angela. July 5, 2005 14:28 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Deprecate doesn't mean remove, it means urge people not to use it. I can't see the point of having a criteria and then saying people shouldn't use it. This just brings confusion. David | Talk 5 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. This is a good criterion.  See also Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
 * 12) The current criterion is and should be vague. Let the admins use common sense. We wouldn't have made them admins if we couldn't trust them. — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)
 * 13) The second-most useful CSD. -- Cyrius|✎ 5 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)
 * 14) Common sense is still the best way to go. This seems to be yet another reaction, out of the many we've been having lately, involving distrust for admins and their choices. Which by the way, sincerely, are unfounded. --Sn0wflake 5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
 * 15) David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. I think that this is useful when common sense is applied, and the bag-and-tag system requires two instances of common sense being used. &mdash; Asbestos | <FONT COLOR=#808080>Talk</FONT> 5 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. I don't think any of the replacements are as good.--Scimitar 5 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
 * 18) OpposeI fear the floodgates will open. I trust the system and the admins enough to believe that this is not abused.--Porturology 6 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)
 * 19) * 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) 08:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. Useful and I don't think this CSD is ever abused that much. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:12 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. This criterion is vague and needs to be used with some common sense, but I have never seen an admin abuse it, so I don't see a good reason for deprecating it. Sietse 6 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose I fear that if this is abused then the load on VFD will pile up even more, even if admins continue to use it some users may see it as an opportunity to flood the vfd pages with requests and I have never seen these clauses misused yet. Jtkiefer July 6, 2005 05:56 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)
 * 24) &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 09:59 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. If the other suggestions pass they should serve as further explanations to this one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  6 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose, I object to the deprecation of common sense. Thryduulf 6 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)
 * 27) ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose If it requires a logical IIF test to support, the vote in question is far too complex, and the status quo should be retained. Good thing the status quo is also a better option.  <FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>focused 6 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. There are some things that require a VfD, but this is something a single admin should be able to apply discretion towards. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose - first, no guarantee that any replacement proposal will pass; second, it seems to have worked well thus far; third, other proposals will supplement, not replace this. -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 14:05 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)
 * 32) -- Aphaea *  6 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)
 * 33) &mdash; Dan | Talk 6 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
 * 34) --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
 * 35) --Allen3 talk July 6, 2005 16:40 (UTC)
 * 36) --IByte 6 July 2005 20:34 (UTC) These pages are usually just junk, and if not, even then you could probably get more info my using Google instead of Wikipedia.
 * 37) * IByte's 250th contribution was at (or after) 23:48, 8 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) ABCD 6 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose This is more useful than 11 or 12, they are not as complete. It's a safety net that we need to hang on to and I rarely see it abused Rx StrangeLove 6 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose. It works. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose. Working policy that is rarely abused doesn't need to be removed. Nohat 7 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)
 * 42) -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 07:31 (UTC)
 * 43) Tobycat 7 July 2005 08:22 (UTC)
 * 44) I agree with NatusRoma. Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 7 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)
 * 45) * Ucucha's 250th contribution was at (or after) 07:40, 9 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose drini ☎ 7 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
 * 47) Kill the substubs. Dunc|☺ 7 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose -  Tεx  τ  urε  7 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose, ain't broke. Gazpacho 8 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
 * 50) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) July 8, 2005 08:58 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose - admins are usually sensible enough to make a judgement call Proto t c 8 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose as per Pronto above. The other proposals provide more guidance, but this criterion is still useful. Physchim62 8 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)
 * 53) oppose but would reconsider if CSD expands as per the other items. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
 * 54) oppose no guarantee replacements will pass --Jiang 9 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)
 * 55) Neutralitytalk July 9, 2005 09:36 (UTC)
 * 56) Gwk 9 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)
 * 57) * Gwk's 250th contribution was at (or after) 02:40, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 58) oppose Regardless of whether or not the new criteria is adopted, I feel that this remains an important criterion. -- BMIComp  (talk) 9 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)
 * 59) * Bmicomp's 250th contribution was at (or after) 06:21, 5 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose. A lot of articles I put up for speedy deletion fall under this category. TheCoffee 20:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 61) Oppose. Gamaliel 17:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 62) This is the very defenition of what speedy deleting is about. The rest is just fine tuning. Fornadan (t) 19:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 63) Hiding 22:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 64) Oppose.  - RedWordSmith 05:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 65) Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 66) Oppose. - All the criteria are necessarily subjective, and we have to sometimes trust that people will use best judgement in these things, that the criteria will be used reasonably: this criteria is not a source of current problems, is it?   It has an advantage over some of the newer criteria in that it is simpler, and offers more discretion, which is not necessarily a bad thing. -Mysidia 02:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 67) * 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) 02:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 68) Oppose, it's common sense. Dan100 (Talk) 08:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 69) Oppose. Not much info is lost if such a substub is deleted and if there's doubt it could always pass through VFD to make sure. - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 70) Oppose. Pavel Vozenilek 19:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 71) We should trust in common sense. -Feydey 21:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 72) Even though the criterion has been abused frequently, it is sufficiently precise. David Remahl 03:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 73) Oppose. IanManka 06:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 74) * 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) 09:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 75) Oppose. If an article contains next to no data, I'd prefer to see it removed quickly than stand for a week. It can always be re-added with sufficient data at some later point. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 76) * Blue Aardvark's 250th contribution was at (or after) 07:28, 13 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 77) Oppose, most admins interpret this criterion reasonably. - Jersyko   talk  15:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 78) Trying to make things more precise to avoid arguments usually just results in the exact opposite - more Wiki-lawyering about whether it's really applicable (q.v. WP:3RR). Leave it deliberately diffuse. Noel (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 79) Admins need some leeway to delete crap which falls through the cracks. This covers it. I can't tell you how many times I have tagged articles under this rule. There are enough checks and ballances in the system to permit a catch-all. Casito⇝Talk 01:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 80) Oppose- keep this part of the criteria. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk  20:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 81) Oppose. Themindset 06:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)