On 1/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/12/06, geni <geniice(a)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=32649…
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