This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut WP:MAKESTUBSWP:MAKESTUBS

This page in a nutshell: Why make a red link, when you can make a stub?

So, you just wrote a killer newarticle, and you see lots ofred links. You're surprised, because these topics would probably satisfy thenotability guidelines and Wikipedia seems to have articles onevery single topic imaginable.

Instead of letting thatred link sit there doing nothing:Make it astub!

Replacing red links with stubs helps togrow the encyclopedia. Starting articles can be difficult fornew users who aren't accustomed to Wikipedia's culture and policies. Give them a head start. Wikipedia is consistently in the top of Google searches, so making stubs also helps attract other editors who are familiar with that topic.

Do not feel compelled to create all these stubs on the same day. If it is a lot of work, you can do it gradually at your own pace. Remember,Wikipedia is a volunteer service andthere is no deadline and no rush.

Even if you don't have the time or the inclination necessary to give that topic a fullfeatured article-style treatment, it's okay to create a stub if you are willing to provide:

• Enough information to make it clear what the subject of the article is and for other editors to expand upon it.
• Adequate context, keep in mind that articles with little or no context usually end up beingspeedily deleted
• Asorted{{stub}} tag. Try, for example,{{Bio-stub}} or{{US-bio-stub}} for a biography. (You can see a full list ofstub categories orbrowse stub types organized by thestub sorting WikiProject.)
• At least one good category
• Consider alerting the appropriateWikiProject of the new article by adding their tags to the talk page.
• Providing sources, even just a small number, is valuable in preventing the article's deletion. A plainGoogle search may provide somereliable sources, but they will likely be buried within many more unreliable ones.Google News,Books, andScholar provide the most reliable sources that are useful for establishing notability. Don't just provide links to these sources,cite them to make it clear where your information came from.

Not all words or phrases found in an article aresuitable for making new articles out of in the near future or in some cases, ever. If you think the likelihood is low, consider the following:

• Creating aredirect: You can redirect the term to an existing article, or even a section within an article that more definitively describes the term. Even if that section has not been written yet, if it fits there, it may be added. And if more information is added there in the future, the redirect can be converted into an article of its own.
• Linking the term straight to another article. If the article you created or worked on has some terms that sound worthy of articles, and these terms are already described in an existing article with a different title, you can link them by entering[[Desired target article|Word or phrase in this article]]. This is useful when it is unlikely the word or phrase is suitable as an article title or a redirect.
• Linking to asister project. For example, if the word or phrase has a dictionary definition that is not encyclopedia, you can link towiktionary by entering[[wikt:Desired target entry]]. This is also useful when wiktionary has an entry that defines the term accurately, and Wikipedia has a page with the exact title referring to something unrelated.

• Wikipedia:Abandoned stubs – opposing point of view

• Wikipedia essays
• Wikipedia essays about building the encyclopedia
• Wikipedia essays about stubs