If you want to start building a house, why not lay at least a few bricks?

百度 上海段和段律师事务所合伙人刘春泉律师认为，网络文化产品具有特殊性，但这并不代表现有法律不适用于该领域。

Not every article comes out of the chute as featured article-class, we all know that. Articles have to grow over time to represent Wikipedia's best work. There's nothing wrong with just a stub. But if you're going to make a stub, at least put a little effort into it. Even just a one-sentence stub becomes a little more if you leave a useful external link or a couple of categories, or even a specified stub template, to give the next user in line a little bit more to go on.

Leaving even one source will also give a jumping-off point for the next writer in line, so that they can maybe read the source and use it to add info from the article. Every drop of "basic" information will be very helpful. If it's a singer who's had a chart single, at least mention that in the article. If it's an author, maybe add a bit about what makes their works notable. If it's an actor, maybe list a couple of their major roles. If it's an album, at the very least provide a tracklist. Even adding an infobox is a good idea.

Just saying "(name of person/place/thing) is/was a (blank)." and nothing else is about the least amount of effort one can contribute to an article, and while it is by no means a sign of laziness, a little more context may just help an article avoid speedy deletion.

See also

• Wikipedia:Beef up that first revision
• Wikipedia:One sentence does not an article make
• Wikipedia:Try not to leave it a stub
• Wikipedia:Stub