Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

Contents

[edit] 11 (no content beyond title)

"Extremely short articles which contain no information other than a rephrasing of the title" should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.
  • An earlier proposal, "Extremely short articles which add no information beyond what is obvious from the title," gathered ~60% support.
  • This can be a replacement for criterion A1, which is proposed to be deprecated above, and which presently reads "very short articles with little or no context". If criterion A1 is not deprecated, this criterion can still stand as a separate case, that partially overlaps A1.
  • This is meant to prevent non-encyclopedic articles such as "A Belgian duck is a duck from Belgium". Since there's nothing special about Belgian ducks as opposed to ducks anywhere else, this can never feasibly be expanded.
  • This also covers articles such as "578357439 is a nine-digit number".
  • If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

vote – discuss

[edit] Votes

This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).

[edit] Support

  1. This reflects current practice, but should be clarified in the criteria. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 15:54 (UTC)
  2. Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
    Isn't this already covered in the "no content" category? Support anyway. Hermione1980 4 July 2005 17:04 (UTC) Nevermind, changing vote to oppose.
  3. Such articels have no value.DES 4 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)
  4. I agree. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:44 (UTC)
  5. --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
  6. Dragons flight July 4, 2005 20:57 (UTC)
  7. humblefool® 4 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)
  8. --Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)
  9. Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)
  10. NatusRoma 4 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
  11. the more limited wording is a Good Thing. JesseW 5 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)
  12. Support, but prefer to keep the current version of A1 too. Even if A1 is removed, still support.-Splash 5 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)
  13. Strong support. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
  14. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)
  15. gadfium 5 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)
  16. Admins should be encouraged to stubbify if possible, but otherwise, delete it. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
  17. Support. -- BD2412 talk July 5, 2005 04:08 (UTC)
  18. Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)
  19. Support - seems to mirror current practice.--G Rutter 5 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)
  20. valueless articles. JoJan 5 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)
  21. This is already the way that some speedies happen. — Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)
  22. Support. It's better to not have an article at all in these cases so people will know that it's missing. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
  23. Support ("This election is no longer legitimate." ?!?) Aaron Brenneman 5 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)
    • Note that this is Aaron Brenneman's 10th and 11th edits. Does not meet suffrage criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 8 July 2005 08:51 (UTC)
  24. Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)
  25. Support. Redlinks encourage the creation of newer, more substantial articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 5 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
  26. Support. I think it's perfectly safe to trust admins with this power, although I suspect all articles in this category would already be caught by the "very short articles" criteria. David | Talk 5 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)
  27. Rossami (talk) 5 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)
  28. Support. Corollary of the current critereon. — Asbestos | Talk 6 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
  29. Support. Covers all the bases. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
  30. Support now that the clarification was clarified. —Cryptic (talk) 6 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
  31. support. pending test run results. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:38 (UTC)
  32. Support. A useful clarification. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 04:50 (UTC)
  33. Support. -R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)
  34. Support as per TenOfAllTrades -- the wub "?/!" 6 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)
  35. Support. Pretty obvious really. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 6 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
  36. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
  37. Support. Really covered already in "little or no content" rule, but OK with emphasizing this further. Sjakkalle (Check!) 6 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)
  38. Support. Sietse 6 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)
  39. --Porturology 6 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)
  40. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)
  41. Support, sensible. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)
  42. Support, why not. --Aphaea* 6 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
  43. Support. A fairly significant number of voters in the old proposal noted that they would have supported (for the opposers) or preferred (for the supporters) the version that is now proposed in this version. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
  44. Anyone who does this already, raise your hand. —Charles P. (Mirv) 6 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)
  45. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
  46. Support as a suppliment to A1. Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 6 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)
  47. Support as a supplement to A1, not neccessarily a replacement. Fieari July 6, 2005 21:55 (UTC)
  48. Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
  49. Kaldari 6 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
  50. Good to make it explicit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)
  51. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:31 (UTC)
  52. Support Tobycat 7 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)
  53. Support functionally similar to what we have now. workable -Harmil 7 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
  54. Support <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
  55. Support The Uninvited Co., Inc. 7 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)
  56. Support.  Grue  7 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
  57. Support. While I object to the deletion of substubs, this is a reasonable brightline. —thames 7 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)
  58. Strong support drini ☎ 7 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
  59. Support in case A1 is deprecated. --Angr/t?k t? mi 8 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)
  60. Support. Agree with what Thames said. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)
  61. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:23 (UTC)
  62. Neutralitytalk July 9, 2005 09:41 (UTC)
  63. This link is Broken 9 July 2005 14:46 (UTC), I allready delete these
  64. Support Gwk 9 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
  65. Support --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
  66. Support TheCoffee 21:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  67. Support. Why not? Basically the same as A1, but therefore harmless, and slightly more specific. -R. fiend 21:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  68. Support. Reasonable and obvious. Gamaliel 17:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  69. Support. Septentrionalis 21:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  70. Support. Handles a common case of nonsense that is not quite patent nonsense. --Allen3 talk 21:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  71. -- nyenyec ☎ 00:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  72. Support. per Allen3 --Mysidia 13:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  73. Support (changed vote - was confused between this and Prop. 12). - McCart42 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  74. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  75. Dsmdgold 14:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  76. Nifboy 00:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  77. MarkSweep 01:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  78. Shanes 06:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  79. Already covered by A1 and nonsense IMO, but an addition to delete articles which only have their title or rephrasings thereof deleted won't hurt. Mgm|(talk) 12:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  80. Support – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  81. Support. / Alarm 18:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  82. Support. Pavel Vozenilek 19:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  83. Feydey 23:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  84. Red links encourage development. David Remahl 03:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  85. Support. IanManka 06:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  86. Supportyes --Bhadani 18:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  87. Support seems to be what is actually happening today without problems. Vegaswikian 05:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  88. Support. I do believe that this is part of the current criteria anyway, and I'd hate to see vfd's on pages like this. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  89. support this subset of current criterion.--MarSch 13:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  90. Weak Support Not sure I agree 100%, but it is already common practice. Casito⇝Talk 02:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  91. Support EnSamulili 10:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  92. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Previously proposed wording was FAR better. This is a more limited phrasing. -- Netoholic @ 4 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
  2. What's already in place is better. Remind me to look around a bit more carefully before I vote. Hermione1980 4 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)
  3. Existing criterion is sufficient. And this one is confusing. "578357439 is a nine-digit number" provides more info than found in the title (presumably 578357439). Pburka
    1. No, it does not. --MarSch 13:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - earlier wording was far better. (I would have voted support on it, were I a proposal voter at that time.) --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, I prefer leaving A1 as-is. Would support if proposal A1 passed. JYolkowski // talk 5 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
  6. prefer existing criterion as more flexible. Denni☯ 2005 July 5 02:47 (UTC)
  7. Existing criterion is muchly better. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
    I'd support, except for the clarification that "This is a replacement for criterion A1". It sure ain't. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)
  8. This limits the criteria on short articles, which are the ones that need to be speedied most. Harro5 July 5, 2005 05:51 (UTC)
    1. Nothing says this criterion must be the only one for short articles. It could pass, with other criteria also passing or being left unchanged. DES 5 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 5, 2005 14:32 (UTC)
  10. We already delete articles like this, no need for a separate rule. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
  11. Existing criterion is better — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)
  12. Redundant - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Either doesn't add anything new, or is too subtle to be applied properly in practice. Factitious July 6, 2005 00:16 (UTC)
  14. Oppose rather obvious, but already covered by existing criteria. Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Current wording of the criteria already covers this, and considerably more, much more efficiently. Unfocused 6 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Redundant with current policy and practice. --FOo 6 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)
  17. Oppose redundant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:26 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Current policy is adequate and functional. Nohat 7 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, covered by the short/no context rule. Gazpacho 8 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)
  20. 24 at 9 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Redundant. --Canderson7 18:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Weak oppose. Good in principle, but articles of this sort would be very unlikely to survive a VfD, and those that do would likely do so only because the voting process would attract enough attention that the article would be expanded. The worst offenders here are already covered in existing criteria, as others have said. – Seancdaug 01:54, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Already covered. Grace Note 02:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. What everyone else said - plus, you're assuming an article like that CAN'T be improved. -- A Link to the Past 09:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Already covered by A1, thus useless. --Sn0wflake 08:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  26. Oppose A1 covers this; instruction creep Dan100 (Talk) 09:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Oppose 26 other people already agree with me: VfD already covers this, and VfD is most appropriate because then those articles get the serious attention they really need. As a CSD, it would only decrease the aggregate level of new relavant information being added to wikipedia. This is one of the few VfD-to-CSDs that should stay VfD.Inigmatus 17:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. Rephrasing is too subjective a criterion. How much extra information is just part of rephrasing? Superm401 | Talk 13:24, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • I can see a consensus. Almost everyone seems in favour of deleting articles of the proposed kind. The only question is how to formulate this in relationship to the current wording about short articles with little conte(x/n?)t. Does anyone think this proposal is not a subset of what we already have?--MarSch 13:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this proposal was intended as a clarification of and even a replacement for part of the current criteria. DES 16:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Wikipedia%7ECriteria_for_speedy_deletion_Proposal_11_ef60.html"