Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ShaneKing (talk | contribs) at 01:26, 4 January 2005 (agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposal II (Amount of content II)

(Vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Extremely short articles which add no information beyond what is obvious from the title.

Votes

Agree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ground 00:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Smoddy | Talk 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. max rspct 00.15 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Wikimol 00:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. SimonP 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Vamp:Willow 01:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. older≠wiser 01:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Lee S. Svoboda 02:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Kevin 02:16, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Carnildo 02:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Antaeus Feldspar 02:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  20. cleduc (Talk) 03:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Antandrus 03:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. Ливай | ☺ 03:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  24. gadfium 04:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  25. BrokenSegue 05:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. DJ Clayworth 05:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 05:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  28. Ben Brockert 05:42, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Korath (Talk) 05:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Jeff Knaggs 08:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  31. Skysmith 09:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. Dysprosia 11:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  33. Dori | Talk 14:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Tuf-Kat 14:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  35. P Ingerson 14:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  37. Michael Ward 17:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  38. Tompagenet 19:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  39. BM 20:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  40. RickK 21:17, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Mrwojo 21:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  42. Average Earthman 22:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Better to red link such articles that waste a user's time.
  43. hfool/Wazzup? 23:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Redlink it, so someone browsing around who knows something about it will see it and go, "Ooo! I can add something about that!"
  44. Vignaux 02:29, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  45. Joshuapaquin 02:49, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  46. DCEdwards1966 02:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  47. ℘yrop (talk) 03:15, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  48. gK ¿? 03:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  49. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  50. Frazzydee|✍ 03:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC): An article whose content is the same as its the title is no more useful than a nonexistant one.
  51. jni 09:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  52. Xezbeth 11:32, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  53. Alphax (talk) 12:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  54. Cyrius|✎
  55. Gamaliel 14:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  56. Kaldari 16:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  57. G Rutter 16:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  58. Proteus (Talk) 17:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  59. David Iberri | Talk 19:31, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  60. Lucky 6.9 19:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  61. Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  62. Keith D. Tyler [flame] 20:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) though I wish it were more clearly defined
  63. Shane King 01:26, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Ld | talk 00:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. "Obvious" is not well defined and has been easy to abuse in the past, plus, makes no allowance for if the article is marked stub, categorized, interwiki'd, etc. Netoholic @ 00:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  3. Will lend itself to abuse in the future. Triped 00:25, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. for reasons above Xtra 00:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  6. The wording is not clear; if it's something I've heard of before than anything could be obvious by the title! One could also infer a lot things from a title alone without prior knowledge. The proposal text should make it clear that this applies to places where the words of the title are reused without any other clarifying words. Text explicitly marked as stubs of this type where multiple editors have contributed significant changes should go to vote. --Sketchee 01:31, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. "Obvious" is a very subjective term; what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. In addition I feel that this proposal could potentially lead to abuse, or allegations of abuse. Rje 01:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. I firmly disagree with what some people consider 'obvious'; as a term, it's inextricably linked to the prior knowledge of whoever's viewing the article. Meelar (talk) 02:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. I agree with the above; it's too subjective. --Slowking Man 07:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Some of these are probably candidates for redirects/merges. iMeowbot~Mw 07:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Just because an article is short and useless, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on that topic. Bad articles want fixing, not deleting. David Johnson [T|C] 12:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Articles like this should be marked as (sub)stub or merged. If the topic is encyclopedic, the page will get recreated eventually anyway, so what's the problem? Kelly Martin 17:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. I agree with the comment above (by user Kelly Martin). However, I disagree with the objection that the wording is subjective: if anyone disagrees with the proposal for that reason, they should provide an ambiguous example or reconsider their position. Phils 18:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Too subjective. Dan100 19:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Peacenik 20:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Too subjective.Dr Zen 23:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Anthony Liekens 00:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. Agree completely with David Johnson, the 13th voter. BSveen 00:29, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  21. RMG 01:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. Halibutt 05:48, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  23. JesseW 06:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  24. Ryan! | Talk 10:36, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Gentgeen 11:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. Too subjective, may encourage abuse of speedy deletion process. -- Naive cynic 12:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. – Quadell (talk) (help) 13:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  28. "Obvious" is a very subjective term; what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. Mononoke 16:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  29. Substubs, remember! Mailer Diablo 16:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  30. PedanticallySpeaking 19:10, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Will lend itself to abuse. -ÅrУnT 20:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD/Proposal_II_(Amount_of_content_II)&oldid=9093970"