Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

Contents

[edit] 8 (duplicates of Wiktionary)

"Any article that has no content beyond that in Wiktionary" should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.
  • "Foreign language articles that already exist on another Wikimedia project" is already a criterion for speedy deletion. That criterion was added before the sister projects existed.
  • On average, four or five such articles pass through VFD each day. While an article that is also in Wiktionary may be a valid topic, as long as the article has no content beyond that in Wiktionary it is not encyclopedic. An article can be both in Wikipedia and in Wiktionary, but they should not be identical.
  • In particular, many of such articles can never be expanded beyond a definition. This is particularly true if the article is about a saying, phrase or name.
  • 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. Mike Rosoft 4 July 2005 15:44 (UTC). Again, this reflects an established practice: I have nominated a number of articles for speedy deletion as dictionary definitions which are already in Wiktionary, and nobody bothered with nominating them at VfD.
  2. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL
  3. Dicdefs already in Wiktionary are of no use to Wikipedia unless they can be expanded. Again, admins can use their own judgement as to whether the article can be expanded. Agree also with Mike Rosoft. Hermione1980 4 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)
  4. Sounds good to me. Etymology does not an article make. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 17:58 (UTC)
  5. JYolkowski // talk 5 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)
  6. Suggest adding a clear guidance note to newbies that "Wikipedia wants articles with verifiable information beyond what is considered the dictionary defintion of the topic. The Wiktionary is considered to provide the definitions against which "information beyond" will be judged.". Or something. -Splash 5 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
  7. The criterion is clear in stating that this refers to articles which are duplicates of Wiktionary entries. Fair enough. Denni☯ 2005 July 5 02:42 (UTC)
  8. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)
  9. If an article should be an article beyond its dictionary definition, then it should be self evident. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
  10. If someone has more information than the wiktionary, they can create the article instead of having a stub around PeregrineAY July 5, 2005 10:14 (UTC)
  11. A stub that is merely a dicdef, from Wiktionary or elsewhere is not useful. Better that someone knowledgable starts a stub, in my opinion. —Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)
  12. Support. A wiktionary definition is worse than no article at all, since it means that people won't see a red link and know that something's still missing. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)
  13. Wikipedia is explicitly not a dictionary. If the dictionary content is already in Wiktionary, then there's no sense leaving a dictionary definition lying around. -- Cyrius|✎ 5 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
  14. Weak support — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)
  15. Rossami (talk) 5 July 2005 22:16 (UTC) per Cyrius. If someone wants to recover the information to create a real encyclopedia article, they can easily get it from Wiktionary.
  16. Support. No content is lost to us this way. Factitious July 6, 2005 00:10 (UTC)
  17. Support. — Asbestos | Talk 6 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
  18. Support. Established practice. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:30 (UTC)
  19. Support. -R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)
  20. --Porturology 6 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)
  21. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
  22. Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)
  23. ABCD 6 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)
  24. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:28 (UTC)
  25. This will ameliorate speedy del's. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
  26. Support any article can be recreated with expanded content, so nothing is lost. drini ☎ 7 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
  27. Support - I agree with Drini - Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
  28. Support Gwk 9 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
  29. Support. Wonderful idea. If the article can be filled with anything beyond dictionary definitions, someone will do it sooner or later. That later is something we can certainly wait around for... Peter Isotalo 17:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  30. -- nyenyec ☎ 00:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  31. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  32. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 02:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC) Nothing is lost in such deletions, if a subject is worthy, an article will eventually be written.
  33. Support Dan100 (Talk) 08:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support per Scnee and Cyrius. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. Pavel Vozenilek 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. Red links encourage development. David Remahl 03:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. EnSamulili 10:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support--Carl Hewitt 20:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. This means that any article can be deleted simply by transwiki-ing. Many people think that items such as breadbox can never be more than dictionary definitions, but there is no consensus for that. Kappa 4 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
    • However, please compare breadbox to wikt:breadbox and see that the former is an encyclopedia article, and the latter is a dicdef. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 17:23 (UTC)
      • Breadbox was nominated for deletion after transwiki, and survived. Under this proposal it would have been speedied. Kappa 4 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)
        • Arguably it would have been tagged for speedy by some user, but an admin (or valiant Cat:CSD watchperson) would have expanded it a bit rather than deleted it. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 17:58 (UTC)
          • I don't think you are familiar with what happens in cat:CSD. Deletions are often governed by the most aggressive possible interpretation of criteria. Kappa 4 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
  2. I oppose this on the basis that as long as the information is valid, it encourages people to extend and expand the article. I believe that the vast majority of those who use WP are not familiar with wiktionary, and I also believe that people are more likely to extend an article that already exists, rather than create a new one from scratch. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:39 (UTC)
  3. 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 19:05 (UTC)
    Of any of the CSD proposals, this will likely take a flood from VfD and move it over to WP:VfU instead. Bad. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)
  4. This needs to be a VfD domain, I think. humblefool® 4 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
  5. --Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
  6. BTW, "Breadbox" has huge potential for expansion. I have a "Collector's Dictionary of American Antiques" sitting on my shelf, and "breadbox" has a respectable article there. Any real world thing is 100% encyclopedic; if someone thinks otherwise, shows his total ignorance, and not of the subject, but of the existance people who make these things, hence can write about them quite a few words. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
  7. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
  8. I frequently come across perfectly valid, encyclopedic stubs that also happen to be almost-tolerable dictionary definitions. We should be able to mark these for bot-assisted transwiki to Wiktionary, and thus help that project out, without opening Wikipedia to harm by making good encyclopedic stubs speedyable. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 04:18 (UTC)
  9. Agree with Cryptic. Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)
  10. Agree with Cryptic JoJan 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 5, 2005 14:29 (UTC)
  12. Weak oppose, supporting the use of {{wi}} as an alternative to deletion. Angela. July 5, 2005 15:11 (UTC)
  13. If an article contains nothing that isn't in Wikionary, first try to extend it. Definitely not speedy material. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
  14. SimonP July 5, 2005 16:04 (UTC), a poor dict. def. an a poor stub can often be the same thing.
  15. As Angela. We should be promoting the use of soft redirects where possible. This helps the reader (they find the information they are looking for), and it helps Wikimedia through cross-fertilization from one project to another. Pcb21| Pete 5 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)
  16. David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
  17. Aggree with Angela. Soft redirects are more helpful (and discourage re-creation). — Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. I've changed my vote, because there are no disadvantages to soft redirects as opposed to deletion. Factitious July 6, 2005 01:18 (UTC)
  19. oppose as transiki is fine... duplicates should be redirected to avoid recreation. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:34 (UTC)
  20. Prefer redirects as others. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 06:56 (UTC)
  21. Oppose, if only because many things at VFD are nominated as dicdefs and then kept. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 07:45 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Breadbox is an example of a stub that started as nothing more than a dicdef and became much more. These need to be judged individually on their merits by consensus. Unfocused 6 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)
  23. Oppose whether it is a duplicate of a wiktionary article is irrelevent to whether it is encyclopedic or not, and therefore whether it is a CSD. Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Expandable stubs shouldn't be removed. Non-expandable stubs should be softlinked. Sietse 6 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. I think several dicdefs of the type found in Wiktionary have grown to valid stubs. Just because the entry is in Wiktionary doesn't mean we should discard the seed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 6 July 2005 10:54 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
  27. Oppose per Angela's alternative. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)
  28. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. I can foresee intelligent vandals deliberately replacing a borderline case with its wiktionary text and sticking a speedy tag on it. Borderline dicdefs need to be taken to VFD. David | Talk 6 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
  30. Oppose per Angela's alternative. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:22 (UTC)
  31. So I can copypaste any article to Wictionary and then delete it? Whoa!  Grue  7 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Stubs can always be expanded. An article like Salad days might not exist if this policy were allowed. —thames 7 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. There are plenty of dicdef-looking stubs that need the exposure of VFD to be expanded into encyclopedia articles. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 8 July 2005 06:55 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. A Wiktionary dicdef should be seen as a basis on which to expand the article. Articles that have no potential for expansion should be considered for VFD on a case by case basis. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)
  35. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:20 (UTC)
  36. Oppose Good articles can often start out as stubbish looking definitions, consensus should decide if something has a future. In any case I'd rather see a 6 month old article that never grew past a dicdef end in a VfD then a brand new page disappear in a speedy deletion after a day or less of existence. Rx StrangeLove 8 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
  37. oppose because IMO the no-dicdef criterion leads to the premature death of potentially good articles, even when they pass through VfD. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
  38. Articles shouldn't be speedied just for being stubby. Most users dont' know about or use wiktionary. (retroactive signing: Dave (talk) July 9, 2005 04:42 (UTC))
  39. 24 at 9 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. TheCoffee 21:29, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  41. Oppose. Some can and should be expanded, and VfD will decide the rest. --Canderson7 18:44, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. There are many definitions that have become articles. Grace Note 02:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  43. Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  44. Dsmdgold 14:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Oppose Hiding 15:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  46. Definition-stubs sometimes grow into articles. Shanes 06:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  47. Weak Oppose Agree with Shanes, though obvious defs should be CSD. I can't seem to make up my mind on this, other than out of 1000 reasons in favor of such a CSD, I just happen to have 1001 in against it. Admins should touch def stubs as if they were nuclear potatoes ready to explode. The regular VfD rules are sufficient for these.Inigmatus 17:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  48. Oppose, per Shanes. IanManka 05:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  49. Oppose. Determining whether or not an article has room to grow is not the job of one admin, but rather VFD. Casito⇝Talk 02:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. Whether an article is capable of expansion in this case should be left to vfd. Capitalistroadster 06:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  51. Oppose. First of all, the proposal didn't specify that all characters must be identical. Anything other than that opens the door for subjective decisions regarding what's "nothing more." Furthermore, definitions can be a good starting place for an article. In fact the article writing guide advocates starting with a def. No one wants to have to go to Wiktionary to get that start. Superm401 | Talk 13:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I also just saw Kappa's post. It points out how this criterion could be manipulated to delete ANY article. Superm401 | Talk 13:17, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  52. Oppose- as stated above, a dictdef may be a good article start. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  53. Oppose I'm starting to worry that we're trying to put an awful burden on admins with all these categories that require admin checking beyond the obvious is it nonsense. Hiding 23:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)