Fred Bauder wrote:

...

Precisely the point. An aggressive campaign against stubs and a policy which results not only in deletion but them being irrecoverable is not that. Stubs are not only a bit of information, but a seed planted, a part of the more general structure of knowledge.

If you'd bother to read what we write, you'd see that we are NOT campaigning against stubs. I repeat: we are not campaigning against stubs. In my vocabulary, with the current context, a stub is something that is not the real thing, but that does perform some part of what the real thing is expected to do (in analogy with, for example, developing software). For an encyclopedia article, that means that a stub performs some of the required functionality (explaining some term) but not fully. In a sense, almost all Wikipedia articles are stubs, as they do not tell everything there is to be told about a certain topic. However, in normal usage, stubs are those articles that merely contain a short definition; but it is still an article. The pages that we are talking about here are not stubs. They're less than that.

Ok, sounds good to me.

Fred