Stub creation and notability WP STUB defines a stub article as an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject but not so short as to provide no useful information I can not find anything in WP STUB or in WP BIO or WP NO ILITY which suggests that the presence of a stub tag makes a subject notable it seems to me that a stub tag is neutral on the question of notability and serves only to define the article as being too short to provide encyclopedic coverage However you appear to assume that the presence a stub tag is not just an assertion of notability but proof of notability Why No I don t believe I said that If I did that is wrong What I said was that where an article had been commenced not necessarily by me as a stub with which WP is littered and that the whole concept as I understood it of a stub was that the initial editor might not have had that much info to hand but felt the subject important enough for a small entry most encyclopaedias have small sometimes tiny entries which could then be added to by others I think you are referring to a baronet stub Obviously we differ In Britain a Baronet is a minor notable in his own right because he holds that title either directly or hereditarily from the monarch I have known this sinc I was a child and I find it incredulous that a group or groups of people set themselves up as somehow above the monarch and decides that none of these people are notables It is bizarre That is not how society works and it should not be how WP works That is not what BHG said What she asserts is that none of these people are automatically notable And that each may be notable but each depends on its own facts David the point of a stub tag is to say this article is to short and should be expanded if it is going to provide encyclopedic coverage In any topic it s still legitimate for an editor to ask whether that really is an article worth expanding Plenty of stubs are deleted at AfD on a regular basis