On 1/12/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
A while back when there was only one stub catigory and it became completely overloaded someone came up with the idea of substubs. People tended to object to the template on the basis that substubs shouldn't be in wikipedia at but that was mostly a side issue. the core was correct. Single lines do not qualify as stubs. Of course when we switched over to stubs by subject the substub catigory was lost. Still all the details can still be found in the page history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Substub&oldid=326499...
The way to get rid of the substub category was not to move all its contents somewhere else. The only way was by deleting them. I see your point about why they aren't stubs.
So is a substub a candidate for speedy deletion? If so, and a substub is better than the original article, then what's that make the original article?
IOW, if you replace a really bad article with a one line substub, can someone else then delete it? LMAO, this "build an encyclopedia" game is silly sometimes.
Anthony