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

Slight amendment to Proposal I
Could it also include articles that are just interwiki links? This may need some discussion because soft redirects do exist and are ok, however some users like to create articles that are just an inter-language link and this, in my opinion, should also be listed as a candidate for speedy deletion. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 01:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Damn, I've been speedy deleting all those already. :-) Danny 01:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * So have I but it'd be nice if it were actually in policy somewhere :-p -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 01:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inter-language links? If there's a relevant article in another article, there should be a relevant article in English, so these should be changed to the relevant article in English, which should have the inter-language link. No relevant article in English because it hasn't been created yet? These should be tagged, not deleted. Brianjd 05:45, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Damn, interwiki link was already part of the proposal when voting started. Brianjd 05:52, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Proposal I
Could "taxobox" be listed to the items which can cause an otherwise empty page to be deleted? 172.169.21.14 22:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taxboxes are templates. If I remember correctly, templates were always part of this proposal. Brianjd 05:53, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Amendment
Might this be generalized to Any article which contains no sentences? &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [ &#5200; ] 03:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you could do a "See also:" as a sentence. --&mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  03:43, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

The criterion should be based on information
instead of how this information is expressed. Say I'm a spammer interested in promoting ACME Inc. I create an article about ACME with contents " acme homepage: http://acme-inc.us/ " (assuming the ACME category didn't exist before). Arguably, this doesn't provide any more information than just the link to the ACME homepage, yet it cannot be deleted under the proposed policy. IMO it should be possible to speedily delete such articles. The current proposal is useful (in fact, I'll probably vote for it), but I'm afraid it's too narrow since the proposed policy can easily be circumvented. --MarkSweep 00:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This would be counted as vanity. I'm afraid I don't think I could ever support something like that because it's subjective and therefore belongs under Votes for deletion. Brianjd 06:00, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk: Proposal to expand WP:CSD/General talk. Brianjd 06:54, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Good article potential
I think some of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/General talk is relevant here. An article with one of the things on the list is a good incentive to write more, a far better incentive than a red link. Even a blank article is better than a red link but it does make Wikipedia look bad. Brianjd 06:53, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)