Wikipedia talk:One sentence does not an article make

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This idea goes against many years of precedent, policy, and all-around enthusiasm for creating stubs. A one-sentence article may certainly be helpful; and more importantly, it is certainly not complete -- just like Wikipedia itself. Of course these short articles should be expanded, but that goes without saying for almost all content here -- the answer is not deletion. Just give it time. -- phoebe / (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• A one sentence "article" is almost invariably empty. The purpose of an article of any length is to say something. That's why one-sentence articles should go (oh, what policy does this go against? Interested minds want to know!). While it can be argued that some two-sentence "articles" could be interpreted as stubs, in most cases, more information is needed than can be incorporated into two sentences for it to be a viable stub. B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Once, long ago (2001-2004) the kind of articles you are talking about were known as sub-stubs, and they were accepted as part of the natural evolution of an article. They have subsequently gone out of fashion. Anyway, you might be interested in an older page on the subject, particularly in all the ways to fix them besides deletion. -- phoebe / (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This essay goes completely against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with a one-sentence stub, if the one sentence is an accurate reflection of the topic. Short stubs provide material for others to expand. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the threshold?

So what is it about a three sentence article that makes it illuminating and encyclopedic where a two sentence article is doomed to be incomplete? Protonk (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)