If it's garbage delete it.
Full stop.
Deleting a pitiful little stub that contains no useful content is NOT vandalism, and I defend my right and Mav's right and anyone else's right to do it. If you have been around for more than a few WEEKS you probably know what's garbage when you see it... But most people are so afraid of being accused of vandalism that they won't touch them. It's not helping...
Having these pathetic microstubs doesn't make people write more - it just makes people think that 'oh, we have an article on 'X', so I'll look at it later...' instead of saying 'Oh! A red link to X! I'm surprised nobody's written anything yet - I'll go and make an article.'
Examples of a useless stub: 'Walhalla is a town in Australia.' 'A kookaburra is a bird.'
Examples of a useful stub: 'Walhalla is a small isolated town in north-west Victoria. At one time a thriving gold town, it is now virtually abandoned. There is only one road into Walhalla and at times it is blocked by landslips or extreme weather.' etc. 'A kookaburra is an Australian native bird. It was also known as the 'laughing jackass' because of its unusual call. It is a member of the Kingfisher family.' etc
If somebody deleted the second two, I'd be asking them what they were playing at... but the first two do not deserve to exist.
If a stub merely restates the articles title it does not deserve to exist. If a stub is part of a mutually-linked uninformative pair (eg. 'One flew over the Cuckoos Nest is a book by [[Ken Kesey]]' and 'Ken Kesey is the author of a book called '[[One flew over the Cuckoos Nest]]') then you do NOT need both of them, and the one with the least potential for expansion needs to go. If a stub exists purely for the purposes of directing you to a weblink with no explanation, it deserves to go.
Let's get on with the important stuff now... we've wasted enough time on the subject of stubs.