But I do think we should discuss it... is it better to have 1000 stubs or 100 long well-written articles?
I originally rated stubs as no more than a trick to fake a higher article count. I have to admit that stubs succeeded in capturing activity, people start adding stuff, those who cannot write properly add pictures, but there is a quantity of activity they capture.
Same applies to red links, although a stub seems to be more immediate in asking participation. On the other hand, stubs grow quite casually and eventually need to be rewritten into a proper article, because they do capture stuff but have no underlying scheme.
I suppose there's no general rule, though. It would be easier to judge if we could have a curve about "stub growth in time". Ours started to grow some 4-5 months after being made, some are just moving now after a year and some are still empty stubs. Intuitively I'd say some 30-40% of them did capture material (it was about 300-500 pieces about botanic and zoology).
Maybe it would have been better if we had used a wider distribution as per subject. Who knows?
Bèrto d Sèra Personagi dlann 2006 për larvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html