Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal II (Amount of content II)

Proposal II (Amount of content II)

 * (Vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Candidates for speedy deletion:


 * Extremely short articles which add no information beyond what is obvious from the title.

Agree

 * 1) ike9898 02:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Ground 00:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Smoddy | Talk 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) max rspct 00.15 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) ugen 64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) SimonP 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Vamp:Willow 01:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) older ≠ wiser 01:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) As long as we focus on progressLee S. Svoboda 02:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Kevin 02:16, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Carnildo 02:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Antaeus Feldspar 02:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) cleduc (Talk) 03:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Antandrus 03:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Ливай | ☺ 03:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) gadfium 04:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) BrokenSegue 05:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) DJ Clayworth 05:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 05:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Ben Brockert 05:42, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Korath (Talk) 05:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Jeff Knaggs 08:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Skysmith 09:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Dysprosia 11:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Dori | Talk 14:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Tuf-Kat 14:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) P Ingerson 14:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Jayjg  |  (Talk)  17:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Michael Ward 17:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Tompagenet 19:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) BM 20:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) RickK 21:17, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Mrwojo 21:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Average Earthman 22:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Better to red link such articles that waste a user's time.
 * 43) hfool/Wazzup? 23:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Redlink it, so someone browsing around who knows something about it will see it and go, "Ooo!  I can add something about that!"
 * 44) Vignaux 02:29, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
 * 45) Joshuapaquin 02:49, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) DCEdwards1966 02:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) &#8472;yrop (talk) 03:15, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) gK ¿? 03:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 03:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Frazzydee|✍ 03:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC): An article whose content is the same as its the title is no more useful than a nonexistant one.
 * 51) jni 09:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 52) Xezbeth  11:32, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 53) Alphax (talk) 12:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Cyrius|✎
 * 55) Gamaliel 14:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) Kaldari 16:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 57) G Rutter 16:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 58) Proteus (Talk) 17:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 59) David Iberri | Talk 19:31, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) Lucky 6.9 19:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 61) Francs2000 | Talk 20:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 62) Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  20:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) though I wish it were more clearly defined
 * 63) Shane King 01:26, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 64) ping 08:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 65) Dbiv 15:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 66) Support. Deb 18:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 67) MarkSweep 19:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 68) Pavel Vozenilek 20:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 69) (Though the wording on this one could have been a bit clearer) Infrogmation 21:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 70) Wikimol 00:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Redlink is much better than article consisting only of rephrasing the title. Redlinks invite users from other pages.
 * 71) Rossami (talk) 23:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 72) Deathphoenix 23:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) Maybe rephrase to Extremely short articles consisting of nothing but a rephrase of the title.
 * 73) User:Premeditated Chaos 02:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC): Agree if wording is changed to Deathphoenix's. Much more solid definition.
 * 74) Wyss 04:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 75) SWAdair | Talk 07:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 76) Warofdreams 11:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 77) Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:49, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 78) --Plato 22:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 79) Cmprince 23:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 80) kelvSYC 06:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 81) Agree with Wikimol. Ben Standeven 07:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 82) SocratesJedi 07:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC). Agree with Wikimol
 * 83) Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 84) -- uriber 22:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 85) GeorgeStepanek\talk  00:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 86) Hoary 05:26, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
 * 87) Stormie 07:14, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 88) Jiang 08:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 89) Belgian man 12:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 90) andy 15:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 91) AlexTiefling 17:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 92) Cdc 23:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 93) ✏ Sverdrup 18:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 94) Michael Ward 04:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 95) Paddu 04:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 96) foobaz·✐ 19:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 97) I agree with Average Earthman and hfool above. A redlink is better than a page that technically exists but has no real content. - RedWordSmith 21:36, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 98) Niteowlneils 22:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC). Agree with Wikimol, et al. Also, this proposal simply documents current practice--it is NOT a proposed change. Niteowlneils 22:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 99) Grunt 🇪🇺 01:15, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
 * 100) jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 101) Raven42 05:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 102) Indrian 07:08, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 103) Cool Hand Luke  09:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 104) Curps 09:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 105) Trilobite (Talk) 13:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 106) FOo 16:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 107) Martg76 16:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 108) Ashibaka tlk 19:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 109) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 110) R. fiend 20:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 111) CryptoDerk 22:08, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 112) Catherine\talk 01:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 113) Arwel 04:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 114) jdb ❋ 07:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 115) Rmhermen 16:29, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 116) Denni ☯ 02:52, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
 * 117) RSpeer 03:54, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 118) BesigedB (talk) 16:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 119) Calton 07:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 120) Enochlau 23:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 121) --Aphaea 02:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 122) --172.157.189.96 02:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 123) R. S. Shaw 07:33, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
 * 124) Again, this is already done in practice. I trust most admins to know where to draw the "obvious" line. -- Hadal 07:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 125) RedWolf 20:40, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

 * 1) Ld | talk 00:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) "Obvious" is not well defined and has been easy to abuse in the past, plus, makes no allowance for if the article is marked stub, categorized, interwiki'd, etc. Netoholic @ 00:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * 3) Will lend itself to abuse in the future. Triped 00:25, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) for reasons above Xtra 00:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * 6) The wording is not clear; if it's something I've heard of before than anything could be obvious by the title! One could also infer a lot things from a title alone without prior knowledge.  The proposal text should make it clear that this applies to places where the words of the title are reused without any other clarifying words.  Text explicitly marked as stubs of this type where multiple editors have contributed significant changes should go to vote. --Sketchee 01:31, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) "Obvious" is a very subjective term; what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. In addition I feel that this proposal could potentially lead to abuse, or allegations of abuse. Rje 01:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) &#8227; &#5339;&#5505; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) I firmly disagree with what some people consider 'obvious'; as a term, it's inextricably linked to the prior knowledge of whoever's viewing the article. Meelar (talk) 02:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) I agree with the above; it's too subjective. --Slowking Man 07:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Some of these are probably candidates for redirects/merges. iMeowbot~Mw 07:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Just because an article is short and useless, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on that topic. Bad articles want fixing, not deleting. David Johnson [ T|C ] 12:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Articles like this should be marked as (sub)stub or merged. If the topic is encyclopedic, the page will get recreated eventually anyway, so what's the problem?  Kelly Martin 17:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) I agree with the comment above (by user Kelly Martin). However, I disagree with the objection that the wording is subjective: if anyone disagrees with the proposal for that reason, they should provide an ambiguous example or reconsider their position. Phils 18:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Too subjective. Dan100 19:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Peacenik 20:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Too subjective.Dr Zen 23:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Anthony Liekens 00:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Agree completely with David Johnson, the 13th voter. BSveen 00:29, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) RMG 01:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Halibutt 05:48, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) JesseW 06:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) R yan!  |  Talk  10:36, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Gentgeen 11:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Too subjective, may encourage abuse of speedy deletion process. -- Naive cynic 12:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) – Quadell (talk) (help) 13:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) "Obvious" is a very subjective term; what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. Mononoke 16:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Substubs, remember! Mailer Diablo 16:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) PedanticallySpeaking 19:10, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Too vague. Will lend itself to abuse. [[User:Consequencefree| Ardent &dagger; &isin; ]] 20:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)            PS. However I would change my vote to agree iff the wording was changed to Deathpheonix's Extremely short articles consisting of nothing but a rephrase of the title. [[User:Consequencefree| Ardent &dagger; &isin; ]] 06:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Too subjective. arj 16:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Will be abused. ✏ Oven Fresh  ☺  18:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Definitely too vague, and once again a starter page can easily be better than no page at all. Kaz 18:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Hapsiainen 23:56, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) A little too vague. If "Tezuka Yamazaki" had the content "Tezuka Yamazaki is a Japanese man," I would agree with its deletion. - Vague | Rant 03:05, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Mackensen (talk) 05:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) The various objections raised here must be dealt with first.  →Iñgōlemo←   (talk)  05:53, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * 39) I don't think this is too vague but there are other problems. Brianjd 07:29, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC) [ strike Brianjd 07:39, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC) ]  Actually, after reading other user's comments, I think that this is too vague. Brianjd 07:39, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * 40) --JK the unwise 11:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Too vague. [maestro] 12:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) I thought about it and the wording is not watertight as it stands. --JuntungWu 03:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Also what Netoholic @ said. --JuntungWu 03:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC))
 * 43) Too vague, subjective. --Viriditas | Talk 09:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) I support the spirit of the proposal, but obvious is too vague. Josh 10:28, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Wouldn't this include most substubs?Lectonar 14:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) Mikkalai 03:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) Norg 15:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Superm401 17:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) I don't want people to abuse the word obvious
 * 49) Guanaco 04:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) No.
 * 50) Too subjective. Secretcurse 03:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 51) bernlin2000 ∞ 15:29, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) : Horrible stub of an article is better than no article at all. Should be on pages that need work, not deletion.
 * 52) If it does not harm, why delete it? A substub is less likely to invite vandalism than a dead link. D AVODD   21:00, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 53) Agree with Davodd -- harmless content should not be deleted.  Substubs are part of how Wikipedia grows.  -- Visviva 22:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Subjective and vague. Andrew pmk 23:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) Too vague. This would ban sub-stubs with potential to expand. 23skidoo 06:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) Too subjective and vague, thouhg I am in favor of expanding CSD&mdash;Trevor Caira 07:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 57) Markaci 09:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 58) Smerdis of Tlön 17:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Way too subjective.)
 * 59) I thought the whole idea of wikipedia was for people to create articles with whatever they knew, then other people who knew something else about the subject could come along and add more. This goes against all of that (plus do we really need yet MORE pointless bureaucracy in WP? --Cynical 20:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) This proposal appears to ban substubs. -- llywrch 20:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 61) Robin Patterson 23:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 62) Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  00:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 63) It is better to bring it to the attention of the community so that more people have the opportunity to consider it.165.228.129.11 00:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 64) JoaoRicardo 04:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 65) --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 15:27, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) - Disturbingly vague. - The above vote was from me. Capitalistroadster 00:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 66) Salazar 06:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 67) Oldak Quill 19:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 68) Starblind 20:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) If there's one thing in life that's obvious, it's that no two people have the same definition of obvious.
 * 69) Strobie 23:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) defn. of obvious non-obvious
 * 70) bbx 02:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 71) Philip 06:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) Open to abuse and will lead to the removal of articles which might rapidly be expanded
 * 72)   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 17:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) Too loosely defined.
 * 73) Pedant 02:35, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC) proposal '1' should be fine, this goes one notch too far.
 * 74) Eric119 Needs to be better defined. (e.g., "rephrasings of the title", as mentioned in vote 31) 05:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 75) Edeans 07:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 76) Goldom 20:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 77) Katefan0 20:35, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) -- I agree with the concept, but think the proposal's language needs to be tightened to be a little less vague.
 * 78) PacknCanes 08:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) -- As others have said, way too vague. For this to work, there needs to be a subjective definition of "obvious"...which isn't easy to come by.
 * 79) --Brendanfox 11:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) yep, it's just too vague.
 * 80) John 11:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Thing the debate on VfD is useful in these cases.
 * 81) JYolkowski 14:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 82) Valid stubs. Rich Farmbrough 23:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 83) Obvious is not well defined. Valid stubs. It happens. User:Avriette 0:07 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)