Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Microstub

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no need to differentiate between substubs and microstubs - this page is merely feature-creep cruft generated by an IP that only serves confuse and obfusticate wikipedia's namespace. Lommer | ^talk 22:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I perceive this to be a vanity article written for the enjoyment of the contributor. Neologism, not in real Wikipedian use. No need for such a definition. (We don't need definitions of nanostubs, picostubs, attostubs, zeppostubs, harpostubs, gummostubs, or grouchostubs, either). (And I do not look forward to impassioned pleas urging that microstubs be left alone to grow into substubs). Since the article itself acknowledges that "Not too many Wikipedia users would create articles in the form of a microstub," there is no reason to create nomenclature to describe them. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very well put. Andrewa 01:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No such concept in Wikipedia. jni 08:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Substub is good enough to cover very small (e.g. oneline) articles. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-needed definition -- JimmyShelter 14:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete - David Gerard 16:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Micro-Delete ral315 21:51, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.