"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.
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)
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)
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 | May 24 2024 05:58 (UTC)
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)reply
Oppose
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)
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)
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)
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))
There is plenty and content and context in some 1-sentence articles. humblefool® 4 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
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)
Some of the best content on Wikipedia started off as a one-sentence page.
David |
Talk 5 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've seen some veeery loooong sentences... I would prefer a 150 minimum character requirement for a non-redirect article. --
BD2412talk July 5, 2005 04:10 (UTC)
Existing criterion is better — Bcat (
talk |
email) 5 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)
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)
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)
Oppose. Arbitrary. What if it's a moderately long sentence, with lots of useful information?
Factitious July 6, 2005 00:18 (UTC)
Oppose. Let stubs grow, or, if un-growable, let that be decided by VfD. —
Asbestos |
Talk 6 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)
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)
Oppose too arbitrary.
Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
Oppose. Kappa expresses my thoughts exactly on this one.
Sjakkalle(Check!) 6 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)
Oppose as per Kappa.
Sietse 6 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)
Oppose. Length of an article has no bearing on its validity as a stub. It is not a valid quality judgement for speedy delete
Unfocused 6 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)
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)
Oppose, stubs are, erm, stubs, not speedy targets.
James F.(talk) 6 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)
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)
Strong: Wikipedia is not paper and is meant to be expandable. --
ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
Oppose. Arbitrary and bizarre. The sentence is a very poor objective measure of content.
Nohat 7 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
Not needed. --
jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
Oppose. Nohat said it best. Arbitrary and bizarre. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) July 7, 2005 08:33 (UTC)
Oppose too arbitary. -
Aaron Hill July 7, 2005 09:10 (UTC)
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)
Oppose as Fuzheado and others.
Pcb21|Pete 7 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
Oppose. Substubs are valuable.
—
thames 7 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)
Oppose, use stub tags.
Gazpacho 8 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)
Oppose. These should be expanded, not deleted.
TheCoffee 21:34, 9 July 2005 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Oppose. Many of these should be expanded, not deleted. --
Canderson7 18:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
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. --Allen3talk 21:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Never. Should not be deleted, let alone speedied.
Grace Note 02:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Pointless as policy, because it's easily circumvented. --
MarkSweep 01:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose covered by A1
Dan100 (
Talk) 09:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)reply
Oppose wth do we have stubs for?
Inigmatus 18:23, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. -
Jersykotalk 03:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Information content should count, not numbers of sentences. --
MarSch 13:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Stubs may be meaningfull and are often expanded.
Casito⇝
Talk 03:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)reply
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)
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)reply
"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.
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)
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)
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 | May 24 2024 05:58 (UTC)
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)reply
Oppose
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)
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)
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)
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))
There is plenty and content and context in some 1-sentence articles. humblefool® 4 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
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)
Some of the best content on Wikipedia started off as a one-sentence page.
David |
Talk 5 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've seen some veeery loooong sentences... I would prefer a 150 minimum character requirement for a non-redirect article. --
BD2412talk July 5, 2005 04:10 (UTC)
Existing criterion is better — Bcat (
talk |
email) 5 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)
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)
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)
Oppose. Arbitrary. What if it's a moderately long sentence, with lots of useful information?
Factitious July 6, 2005 00:18 (UTC)
Oppose. Let stubs grow, or, if un-growable, let that be decided by VfD. —
Asbestos |
Talk 6 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)
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)
Oppose too arbitrary.
Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
Oppose. Kappa expresses my thoughts exactly on this one.
Sjakkalle(Check!) 6 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)
Oppose as per Kappa.
Sietse 6 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)
Oppose. Length of an article has no bearing on its validity as a stub. It is not a valid quality judgement for speedy delete
Unfocused 6 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)
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)
Oppose, stubs are, erm, stubs, not speedy targets.
James F.(talk) 6 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)
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)
Strong: Wikipedia is not paper and is meant to be expandable. --
ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
Oppose. Arbitrary and bizarre. The sentence is a very poor objective measure of content.
Nohat 7 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
Not needed. --
jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
Oppose. Nohat said it best. Arbitrary and bizarre. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) July 7, 2005 08:33 (UTC)
Oppose too arbitary. -
Aaron Hill July 7, 2005 09:10 (UTC)
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)
Oppose as Fuzheado and others.
Pcb21|Pete 7 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
Oppose. Substubs are valuable.
—
thames 7 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)
Oppose, use stub tags.
Gazpacho 8 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)
Oppose. These should be expanded, not deleted.
TheCoffee 21:34, 9 July 2005 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Oppose. Many of these should be expanded, not deleted. --
Canderson7 18:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
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. --Allen3talk 21:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Never. Should not be deleted, let alone speedied.
Grace Note 02:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Pointless as policy, because it's easily circumvented. --
MarkSweep 01:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose covered by A1
Dan100 (
Talk) 09:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)reply
Oppose wth do we have stubs for?
Inigmatus 18:23, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. -
Jersykotalk 03:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Information content should count, not numbers of sentences. --
MarSch 13:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Stubs may be meaningfull and are often expanded.
Casito⇝
Talk 03:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)reply
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)
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)reply