This is an essay on Wikipedia's Stub guidelines.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
A permastub is an article that is currently a stub and has no reasonable prospect for expansion. There can be many reasons for this. These include:
- The article is a finished article, in no need of improvement.
- There is little verifiable information to be found on the subject.
- All or most aspects of the subject are already covered in other articles.
- There is not much to say about the subject.
- The article is about a subject that was briefly notable, but no longer receives any coverage.
- The subject is about or is notable for a single event, after which there will never likely be any future coverage.
It is important to note that permastubs are articles that either cannot be expanded or have little potential. A stub – even a stub on what you see as a trivial topic – is not a permastub if there is verifiable and encyclopedic information that can be added to it. The importance of a topic is not a factor in how much can be written about it – we have featured articles on things that are obscure and strange.
There are tens of thousands of informative stubs that to expand would only be adding puffery, padding, and undue weight. Paper encyclopedias are full of informative, concise stubs. Finished permastubs likewise don't need expansion.
Some permastubs may be:
- unsatisfying articles – such as unpopular products by now-defunct companies about which little is known
- small-time politicians, athletes, or entertainers from previous centuries – about whom little is known except their names, locations, and occupations
In some cases they might be merged to larger articles and redirected there. In some cases, an argument might be made for deletion.