Wikipedia talk:Permastub
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Why is this a guideline?
This is a guideline, "which many editors agree with", yet it doesn't even have a talk page. Could this not be merged somewhere else? Stevage 11:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Probably to Wikipedia:Stub. It's also not a guideline since it's not actionable, it's merely a dicdef. Radiant_>|< 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Irony
I find it extremely ironic that the section on Permastub, which contains instructions to merge the stub into another article, is
- itself a stub, and
- flagged to be merged.
J. Paupore 01:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- That irony is almost reason to keep it in said state indefinitely. The best definitions are demonstrations. :) —mako (talk•contribs) 17:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is this a permastub?
Matthew Algie. There's not much room for expansion beyond stub status, yet it still has 12 references. I wouldn't recommend this one for deletion at all (it was kept in an AfD) but it also has very little prospect for expansion and could probably never become featured due to the lack of sources, although it is still valid in and of itself. What's the minimum length for a GA anyway?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
