- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Keep (withdrawn). — xaosflux Talk 02:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Permastub
I see a term that I have never heard in nine years of editing here, I see a talk page where folks have questioned the utility of the page anyway, I see a page that says...nothing really...except that sometimes articles are hard to expand but we should try, or failing that upmerge, and adds a photo of a bonsai as some sort of (inaccurate) analogy...and some mention that Featured Articles can be esoteric. All this info is covered elsewhere and we are swimming in essays. Anyway, discuss away. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've heard of the term, and read the essay early on. But that could be because I tried to make it into a habit of reading as many essays as I could when I first started editing. Although personally I don't like the idea of an "article that cannot be expanded" I would argue against deletion, if only because of how red links we'd be creating. This is a long-standing page (created Nov. 2005). It also relates to the so-called wiki-philosophies of WP:Eventualism and WP:Mergism, and although those pages are on meta perhaps there's a better essay we can redirect this to? Also, I found the commentary on the talk page to be quite interesting. -- œ ™ 05:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep this; I use this word all the time! A "doomed permastub" is what you shouldn't get, if you're faithfully following the notability guidelines. The difference between a "stub" and a "permastub" is that stubbiness is curable through expansion. A permastub, on the other hand, cannot be expanded, because sources do not exist and as far as anyone can tell, there is no plausible hope that more sources will ever exist. This includes unpopular products by now-defunct companies and small-time politicians, athletes, or entertainers from previous centuries, about whom little is known except their names, locations, and occupations. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 09:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - this essay describes a type of stub that does exist on Wikipedia, and the term perma stub is used. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Keep (withdrawn). — xaosflux Talk 02:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Permastub
I see a term that I have never heard in nine years of editing here, I see a talk page where folks have questioned the utility of the page anyway, I see a page that says...nothing really...except that sometimes articles are hard to expand but we should try, or failing that upmerge, and adds a photo of a bonsai as some sort of (inaccurate) analogy...and some mention that Featured Articles can be esoteric. All this info is covered elsewhere and we are swimming in essays. Anyway, discuss away. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've heard of the term, and read the essay early on. But that could be because I tried to make it into a habit of reading as many essays as I could when I first started editing. Although personally I don't like the idea of an "article that cannot be expanded" I would argue against deletion, if only because of how red links we'd be creating. This is a long-standing page (created Nov. 2005). It also relates to the so-called wiki-philosophies of WP:Eventualism and WP:Mergism, and although those pages are on meta perhaps there's a better essay we can redirect this to? Also, I found the commentary on the talk page to be quite interesting. -- œ ™ 05:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep this; I use this word all the time! A "doomed permastub" is what you shouldn't get, if you're faithfully following the notability guidelines. The difference between a "stub" and a "permastub" is that stubbiness is curable through expansion. A permastub, on the other hand, cannot be expanded, because sources do not exist and as far as anyone can tell, there is no plausible hope that more sources will ever exist. This includes unpopular products by now-defunct companies and small-time politicians, athletes, or entertainers from previous centuries, about whom little is known except their names, locations, and occupations. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 09:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - this essay describes a type of stub that does exist on Wikipedia, and the term perma stub is used. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.