Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. It should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia:Notability guideline.
Shortcuts:
WP:PNJCS
WP:POTENTIAL
WP:TIMELIMIT
This page in a nutshell: Delete, merge, or keep articles on topics based on their potential notability and verification, not just how they look now.

Potential, not just current state relates to the debate on whether articles in the mainspace should be deleted, merged, or kept based on their current potential to be a encyclopedic entry, or as they are now. Wikipedia is constantly changing and evolving, and it is frequently better to think of the potential of an article as well as how it looks at present.

Contents

[edit] Ways to spot article potential

An article could have potential if...

  1. It gives some context to the topic, even if it is unreferenced.
  2. It gives some importance to the topic, even if it is unreferenced.
  3. It gives some uniqueness to the topic, even if it is unreferenced.
  4. It contains some kind of source, especially if it is a secondary source.
  5. Many other articles link to it.
  6. Large numbers of editors have contributed to the article.

[edit] Why deletion of articles with potential should be avoided

In most cases deletion of a article should be a last resort in the event that the article's topic is not notable and has no potential for its own encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia. Deletion of a article can be one step back-wards in creating an encyclopedic entry for a notable topic. It is frequently a better option to do one or more of the following:

  • Mark the article as a valid stub.
  • Bring the article to the attention of the relevant WikiProject.
  • Add templates marking relevant issues with the article to readers and editors.
  • Simply delete and clean the sections of a article causing a problem, such as copyright violations.

This will allow for editors in the longterm to improve the article to address all concerns. Keeping articles with potential encourages editors, especially unregistered users, to be bold and improve the article to allow it to evolve over time. Having to re-create an article from scratch often takes a long time and can result in a longterm loss of encyclopedic information from Wikipedia.

Note however that article should have immediate potential, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In cases where an article could have potential in the future but does not now, it should merged or redirected appropriately if possible, so it can be easily re-created when potential is gained.

[edit] Why merging of articles with potential should be avoided

Merging an article on a topic with narrow scope into an article with a larger scope can frequently be a good solution to issues of a topic not being notable or verifiable enough for its own Wikipedia article entry. However, merging an article which has potential to be successful as standalone article in the long-run can constrain encyclopedia expansion, cause articles to specialise in one subject area, and possibly result in articles getting too long. It is frequently a better option to do one or more of the following:

  • Mark the article as a valid stub.
  • Bring the article to the attention of the relevant WikiProject.
  • Add appropriate links to and from the article if it is orphaned.
  • Categorise the article if it is uncategorised.
  • Summarise the main points of a "child" article in its "parent" article.

These options help navigation and allow the encyclopedia to flow, while also encouraging longterm article expansion.

[edit] Relevant Wikipedia processes

Frequently the concept can be applied when becoming involved with a variety of Wikipedia processes.

[edit] Speedy deletion nomination

If you have just created an article and it is nominated for speedy deletion, it can be sensible to add the {{hangon}} tag and then to state on the article's talk page that you are still working on the article. It can also help to explain your aims for the article and its potential notability. Often adding context to the article will help in the short-term to establish the potential of an encyclopedic entry on a topic.

[edit] Proposed deletion nomination

If an article is proposed for deletion and you think the article has potential to address the concerns raised, such as notability, then you can simply remove the {{Prod}} template from the article. It is polite to state (often on the article's talk page) why you think the article should be kept; such as citing sources (often those on the internet) that the article can use giving the topic notability and making deletion unnecessary. If a article is deleted by the proposed deletion process, it is possible to make a request to a administrator to undelete it, based on its potential for improvement and expansion.

[edit] Articles for deletion nomination

Articles are frequently nominated for deletion because of their current state, not their potential as an encyclopedic entry. These nominations can often result in de facto time limits of about five days for a article to either improve, or be deleted and sometimes merged. This can cause problems, as frequently editors simply do not have time to fix articles within such a short time period. In these cases it is helpful to alert the discussion that the article has potential to be made into a successful encyclopedic entry, and that more time is needed to improve the article. It can also be helpful to quickly remove content of a article which is causing problems, and to add templates to the article as necessary.

[edit] Merge suggestions

Sometimes it will be suggested that a article be merged with another article. If you are against a merge because you think the article's topic is notable enough for its own entry, it is sensible to explain why on the article's talk page. When discussing mergers it is also wise to think of the longterm, such as the possibility of an article getting to long.

[edit] See also

[edit] Other Wikipedians' commentaries on this area