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

Proposal I (Amount of content I)

 * (Vote) (Discuss)

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


 * Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, or interwiki link.

Agree

 * 1) arthurofsun 06:26 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Inter 17:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Pablo D. Flores 15:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Laurel 18:11, Jan 9, 2005
 * 5) ike9898 02:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Ground 00:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Ld | talk 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Smoddy | Talk 00:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) max rspct 00.15 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Xtra 00:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Sure. The case is clearly defined. -- Netoholic @ 00:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * 14) David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Norman Rogers\talk 00:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Wikimol 00:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) ugen 64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) SimonP 00:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Josh 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Josh Cherry 01:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) MarkSweep 01:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Emphasis on only--Sketchee 01:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Vamp:Willow 01:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Rje 01:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Lee S. Svoboda 01:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) older ≠ wiser 01:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Kevin 02:16, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Carnildo 02:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Antaeus Feldspar 02:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Jrdioko (Talk)  02:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Sc147 03:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Antandrus 03:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) TOR 03:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Ливай | ☺ 03:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) gadfium 04:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Paul August ☎ 05:09, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) DJ Clayworth 05:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 05:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) BrokenSegue 05:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Ben Brockert 05:42, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) Korath (Talk) 05:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) BanyanTree 07:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Slowking Man 07:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) Golbez 07:42, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Sortior 08:18, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 51) Jeff Knaggs 08:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 52) Skysmith 09:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 53) Duh. RadicalSubversiv E 09:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Rafał Pocztarski 10:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) Dysprosia 11:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) David Johnson [ T|C ] 12:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 57) Dori | Talk 14:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 58) Tuf-Kat 14:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 59) P Ingerson 14:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) wheresmysocks 17:03, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 61) Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 62) Michael Ward 17:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 63) Kelly Martin 17:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 64) Phils 18:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 65) Goobergunch|? 18:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 66) Tompagenet 19:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 67) --Peacenik 20:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 68) BM 20:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 69) Mrwojo 21:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 70) RickK 21:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 71) Thue | talk 21:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 72) Randy Johnston 22:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 73) Average Earthman 22:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 74) MPerel 22:43, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 75) hfool/Wazzup? 23:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 76) Conti|✉ 00:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 77) BSveen 00:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 78) Vignaux 02:28, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
 * 79) Joshuapaquin 02:50, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 80) DCEdwards1966 02:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 81) &#8472;yrop (talk) 03:14, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 82) gK ¿? 03:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 83) Comics 03:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 84) Why yes. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 03:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 85) Frazzydee|✍ 03:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 86) Halibutt 05:48, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 87) &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 06:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 88) JesseW 06:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 89) jni 09:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 90) R yan!  |  Talk  10:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 91) Gentgeen 10:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 92) Mgm|(talk) 11:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 93) Xezbeth  11:32, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 94) Bucephalus 11:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 95) Cyrius|✎
 * 96) Naive cynic 12:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 97) Kaldari 15:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 98) G Rutter 16:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 99) Mailer Diablo 16:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 100) Proteus (Talk) 17:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 101) Ping
 * 102) David Iberri | Talk 19:29, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 103) Lucky 6.9 19:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 104) Luigi30 19:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 105) Francs2000 |Talk 20:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 106) [[User:Consequencefree| Ardent &dagger; &isin; ]] 20:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 107) Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  20:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) though in the second case they should be made into redirects, not deleted
 * 108) Ta bu shi da yu 10:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 109) Change the "or" to "and/or" and I'd be even more down with it. Jun-Dai 23:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 110) Shane King 01:28, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 111) Dbiv 15:48, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 112) I only support if its only one or more of those. No loopholes. ✏ Oven Fresh  ☺  18:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 113) I support. Deb 18:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 114) Pavel Vozenilek 20:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 115) Hapsiainen 21:11, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 116) Infrogmation 21:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 117) Deathphoenix 23:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 118) Rossami (talk) 23:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (a redlink is more likely to result in a good article)
 * 119) User:Premeditated Chaos 02:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) - well-defined. Definate support.
 * 120) As long as the "See also" cannot be made into a redirect. - Vague | Rant 03:01, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 121) Wyss 04:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 122) Delete User:Wetman: there must be some lower limit to sub sub-stubs. Just two links of text would make this irrelevant.
 * 123) Mackensen (talk) 05:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 124) →Iñgōlemo←   (talk)  05:51, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * 125) SWAdair | Talk 07:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 126) --JK the unwise 11:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 127) Warofdreams 11:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 128) Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:48, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 129) Agree--Plato 22:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 130) Though I hope an admin would instead redirect if an obvious choice exists. Cmprince 23:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 131) Agree with Cmprince. Jwrosenzweig 00:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 132) Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 133) kaal 02:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 134) kelvSYC 06:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 135) Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 136) Henrygb 22:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 137) Shimeru 23:11, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 138) GeorgeStepanek\talk  00:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 139) Mikkalai 03:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 140) Hoary 05:24, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
 * 141) Stormie 07:14, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 142) --Jiang 08:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 143) Belgian man 12:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 144) andy 15:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 145) AlexTiefling 17:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 146) ✏ Sverdrup 18:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 147) Paddu 04:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 148) Mace13 06:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 149) Good idea. --JuntungWu 10:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 150) bernlin2000 ∞ 15:19, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) : Merge if possible with another article that is related.
 * 151) foobaz·✐ 19:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 152) RedWordSmith 21:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 153) Andrew pmk 23:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 154) Spangineer ∞ 00:02, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 155) Grunt 🇪🇺 01:14, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
 * 156) jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 157) Raven42 05:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 158) 23skidoo 06:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 159) Indrian 07:07, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 160) Trevor Caira 07:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 161) Cool Hand Luke  08:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 162) Curps 09:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 163) Iain 12:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 164) Trilobite (Talk) 13:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 165) FOo 16:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 166) Martg76 16:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 167) Smerdis of Tlön 17:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) (provided the only is crystal clear.)
 * 168) Ashibaka tlk 19:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 169) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 170) R. fiend 20:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 171) CryptoDerk 21:59, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 172) Ambush Commander 22:33, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) Definitely has to be only. Actually, this should go without saying.
 * 173) Agree, but there should be a note on the CSD page recommending that admins not delete such articles until or unless it's clear that the author isn't in process of writing more. Some people create articles in multiple saves, after all, and it would be rude to delete an article in progress. Isomorphic 00:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 174) Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  00:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) Agree with Isomorphic.
 * 175) Catherine\talk 01:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) Isomorphically agree.
 * 176) Arwel 03:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 177) JoaoRicardo 04:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 178) Mason11987 04:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 179) Starblind 20:15, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) But only is the operative word here. Anything with more content should head to VfD.
 * 180) Strobie 23:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 181) Rmhermen 16:28, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 182)   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 17:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 183) BesigedB (talk) 16:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Worst form of substub.
 * 184) Key45 23:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 185) Pedant 02:28, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC) If there's no article, there should be no objection to its deletion.
 * 186) Eric119 If you can't think of even one sentence about something, it doesn't deserve an article. 05:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 187) Edeans 06:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 188) --Calton 07:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 189) Katefan0 20:28, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 190) --Aphaea 02:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 191) I'd suggest using a redirect in most of the cases; otherwise, agree. --172.157.189.96 02:26, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) (sorry, this was me.) --Idont Havaname 02:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 192) Agree with Isomorphic – ABCD 02:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 193) Wombat 05:44, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 194) R. S. Shaw 07:32, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
 * 195) Hadal 07:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 196) PacknCanes 08:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 197) RedWolf 20:39, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 198) --InShaneee 21:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

 * 1) JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * 2) &#8227; &#5339;&#5505; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a little too vague. iMeowbot~Mw 08:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Anthony Liekens 00:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) --Mac Davis 04:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) – Quadell (talk) (help) 13:49, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Not sure about this one. Gamaliel 14:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) First, too vague, second, one can imagine many situations in which an external link is better than no link at allKaz 18:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) One can indeed. It's too general. Christopher Schuller 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) I don't see a problem with it being vague but I do disagree with it, particularly the interwiki part, but the others as well. Brianjd 06:59, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * 12) It's just another kind of substub. [maestro] 12:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) SocratesJedi 07:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Vague. --Viriditas  | Talk 09:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Lectonar 14:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) I agree only for a sole external link. Others should be given the 7 days to improve or be deleted. Thryduulf 10:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Norg 15:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Superm401 17:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) Any of that information provides a basis to develop into more? Why start over?
 * 19) Cacycle 22:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) A link on an editable page is a better starting point for improvements than a non-existing page
 * 20) These things may often be expanded. Ranveig 20:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) It provides a starting point for edits. Secretcurse 03:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Szyslak 02:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'd support this proposal if it only applied to articles that just contained external links (Wikipedia is not a web guide).
 * 23) Markaci 09:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Visviva 10:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) Substubs are candidates for improvement, not deletion.
 * 25) Better to improve than delete.Capitalistroadster 10:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Robin Patterson 21:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) going along with most of the recent comments above
 * 27) Salazar 06:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) The article on Kia Amanti started off as such but was nicely saved. A regular vfd debate is better 129.177.61.124 12:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 15:24, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) - Bad Idea, methniks.
 * 30) Oldak Quill 19:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) bbx 02:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) --Iamunknown 07:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) Not all articles are going to stay in this state.
 * 33) Neither necessary nor sufficient criterion. Rd232 13:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) A link is often beter than nowt Dejvid 02:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Goldom 20:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) -- Enochlau 23:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) it's a start. User:KellyCoinGuy
 * 38) Especially should not apply to inter-wiki links.  All could be valid stubs (or sub-stubs if you like). Rich Farmbrough 23:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)