> Absolutely no one here appears to be suggesting that stubs are bad. If
> we had any deletionists at all who were as hardline as Anthony, Mark
> Richards or Mr. Knight, then that's probably what they would argue.
Maybe no one here, but there are certainly those who vote to delete articles
at least in part because they're stubs. Dpbsmith is one, who said on VfD
"In borderline cases I am influenced by the quality, thoroughness, and
scholarship behind an article as well as the topic. I would probably vote to
keep a good article on this topic. But I vote to delete this one." Geogre
is another, who says on his talk page "The "eventualist" position is of some
concern to me because of the problem of first impressions. Eventually
Wikipedians will fill in gaps, but the new users do not often get motivated
to fix bad articles." "I think that the logic of eventualism applies equally
to absences as stubs. Eventually a Wikipedian will create a good article,
just as eventually a Wikipedian will fix a stub." "All of this is simply to
explain why I am a "deletionist." I do not delete topics. I delete articles.
I do not pass judgment often on whether a thing is worth knowing, but I
think it is very important to make sure that the materials we have are
rewarding for the users."
As for my being "hard line", VfD forces you to be hardline. Instead of
trying to come up with a solution that everyone can agree on, you're forced
to vote, delete or don't. I've tried supporting a number of alternatives.
I've even said that if I'm simply given access to see deleted articles I'll
never participate on VfD again. I've offered the compromise of moving an
article to the talk page when the problem is that the article itself is not
complete. This way someone who wants to develop a complete article has a
stub to start with, but Wikipedia intentionally distances itself from the
article by noting that it's just discussion. I've supported a number of
compromises. I'm not hard line in general, just on VfD, where one is forced
to be hard line.
Anthony