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