What is the difference between a Wikipedia stub and a full article?
A Wikipedia stub is a short article (typically under 500 words) that establishes basic facts and notability but is explicitly marked incomplete. A full article has developed sections, multiple sourced paragraphs, and comprehensive Manual of Style formatting. For COI work, starting with a stub is sometimes the right strategy when sourcing supports notability but not yet full development.
Stubs and full articles are different stages of the same article rather than different types. A stub establishes that a subject belongs on Wikipedia; a full article delivers the comprehensive treatment the subject warrants. For organizations and executives working through disclosed COI editing, knowing which stage is achievable with current sourcing is a practical planning question.
| Dimension | Stub | Full article |
|---|---|---|
| Typical length | Under ~500 words | 1,000+ words; length matches the subject’s depth |
| Content coverage | Basic facts: what the subject is, when founded or born, where located, what it does | Developed sections covering history, structure, activities, context, and notable events |
| Sourcing | Enough reliable independent sources to establish notability; not exhaustive | Multiple sourced sections; each substantive claim backed by a cited reliable source |
| Wikipedia maintenance tag | Tagged with a stub template that explicitly marks the article as incomplete and invites expansion | No stub tag; assessed by the community as meeting completeness expectations for the subject |
| Manual of Style conformance | Basic structure required (lead, at minimum); full MoS compliance not expected | Full MoS conformance expected: proper lead paragraph, section headings, formatting, and citation style |
| Knowledge Panel benefit | Google can generate a Knowledge Panel once any article exists; stub often sufficient to trigger one | Richer article produces more complete and accurate panel fields |
When a stub is the right starting point for COI work
Starting with a stub is sometimes the correct tactical choice when:
- The sourcing clearly supports notability but does not yet support full-article development, a stub prevents premature deletion while more coverage accumulates.
- The entity needs the Knowledge Panel benefit now, a stub article is sufficient to anchor a panel.
- Time or editorial bandwidth is limited, a compliant, well-sourced stub is more durable than a rushed full article that draws policy objections.
The stub then expands over time through Talk-page edit requests as additional independent sourcing becomes available. Creating a stub is not settling; it is sequencing the work correctly.
Last reviewed: 19/05/2026
