It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
Shortcuts
WP:PNJCS
WP:POTENTIAL
WP:TIMELIMIT
WP:NOTIMELIMIT
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 an encyclopedic entry, or as they are now. Wikipedia is constantly changing and evolving – omnia mutantur – and it is frequently better to think of an article's potential rather than just how it looks at present.
Conceptedit
Many articles are created on Wikipedia every day, most of which are a good faith effort by contributors to improve the encyclopedia. Preferably the first revision of all new articles would be beefed up enough so the suitability of an article for inclusion in the encyclopedia could be assessed without needing to look at potential. In practice however due to Wikipedia's open nature of being the 'The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit', articles are and will be created which do not follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines fully but have the potential to do so. While encouraging planning and preparation when creating articles is desirable, contributors, particularly users new to Wikipedia, cannot be expected to build an article perfectly at first attempt. Time should be given for input from multiple editors to allow improvements to be made.
The concept of potential is recognised in the Wikipedia:Notability guideline under #Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. It suggests that if an article does not demonstrate notability, editors should make a good faith search for sources before deletion or merging.
Ways to spot article potentialedit
There are several simple methods that can be used to help determine if an article has potential, even if it is relatively short. An article could have potential if:
It gives some context to the topic it appears to be about, even if it is unreferenced.
It indicates some importance to the topic, even if it is unreferenced.
It indicates some uniqueness to the topic, even if it is unreferenced.
It contains some kind of source, especially if it is a secondary source.
Many other articles link to it.
Large numbers of editors have contributed to the article.
A web search engine (such as Google Search) check of relevant terms of the article bring up many sources, particularly if these sources are reliable and secondary.
Why deletion of articles with potential should be avoidededit
In most cases deletion of an 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 an article can be one step backwards 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 an article causing a problem, such as copyright violations.
This will allow for editors in the long-term 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 long-term loss of encyclopedic information from Wikipedia.
Note however that an 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 be merged or redirected appropriately if possible, so it can be easily re-created when potential is gained.
Why merging of articles with potential should be avoidededit
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 a 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 long-term article expansion.
Relevant Wikipedia processesedit
Frequently the concept can be applied when becoming involved with a variety of Wikipedia processes.
Speedy deletion nominationedit
If you have just created an article and it is nominated for speedy deletion, it can be sensible 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.
Proposed deletion nominationedit
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 an article is deleted by the proposed deletion process, it is possible to make a request to an administrator to undelete it, based on its potential for improvement and expansion.
Articles for deletion nominationedit
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 seven days (changed from five in April 2009) for an 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 an article which is causing problems, and to add templates to the article as necessary.
Merge suggestionsedit
Sometimes it will be suggested that an 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 long-term, such as the possibility of an article getting too long.
See alsoedit
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
Wikipedia:Copyrights
Wikipedia:Eventualism
Wikipedia:Inclusionism
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
Wikipedia:Structurism
Wikipedia:Stubs
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
Wikipedia:Your first article
v
t
e
Wikipedia essays (?)
Essays on building, editing, and deleting content
Philosophy
Article content
Articles must be written
All Five Pillars are equally important
Avoid vague introductions
Be a reliable source
Civil POV pushing
Cohesion
Competence is required
Concede lost arguments
Dissent is not disloyalty
Don't lie
Don't search for objections
Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country
Editors will sometimes be wrong
Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia
Explanationism
External criticism of Wikipedia
Here to build an encyclopedia
Leave it to the experienced
Levels of competence
Most ideas are bad
Need
Neutrality of sources
Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction
The one question
Oversimplification
Paradoxes
Paraphrasing
POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
Process is important
Product, process, policy
Purpose
Reasonability rule
Systemic bias
There is no seniority
Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
Tendentious editing
The role of policies in collaborative anarchy
The rules are principles
Trifecta
Wikipedia in brief
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
Wikipedia is a community
Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction
100K featured articles
Abandoned stubs
Acronym overkill
Adding images improves the encyclopedia
Advanced article editing
Advanced text formatting
Akin's Laws of Article Writing
Alternatives to the "Expand" template
Amnesia test
A navbox on every page
An unfinished house is a real problem
Articles have a half-life
Autosizing images
Avoid mission statements
Be neutral in form
Beef up that first revision
Blind men and an elephant
BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
Build content to endure
Cherrypicking
Chesterton's fence
Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books
Citation overkill
Citation underkill
Common-style fallacy
Concept cloud
Creating controversial content
Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability
Deprecated sources
Dictionaries as sources
Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
Don't get hung up on minor details
Don't hope the house will build itself
Don't panic
Don't "teach the controversy"
Editing on mobile devices
Editors are not mindreaders
Encourage the newcomers
Endorsements (commercial)
Featured articles may have problems
Formatting bilateral relations articles
Formatting bilateral relations templates
Fruit of the poisonous tree
Give an article a chance
How to write a featured article
Identifying and using independent sources
History sources
Law sources
Primary sources
Science sources
Style guides
Tertiary sources
Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats
Inaccuracy
Introduction to structurism
Mine a source
Merge Test
Minors and persons judged incompetent
"Murder of" articles
Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography
Not everything needs a navbox
Not everything needs a template
Nothing is in stone
Obtain peer review comments
Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area
Permastub
Potential, not just current state
Presentism
Principle of Some Astonishment
The problem with elegant variation
Pro and con lists
Printability
Pruning article revisions
Publicists
Put a little effort into it
Restoring part of a reverted edit
Robotic editing
Sham consensus
Source your plot summaries
Specialized-style fallacy
Stub Makers
Run an edit-a-thon
Temporary versions of articles
Tertiary-source fallacy
There are no shortcuts to neutrality
There is no deadline
There is a deadline
The deadline is now
Try not to leave it a stub
Understanding Wikipedia's content standards
Walled garden
What an article should not include
Wikipedia is a work in progress
Wikipedia is not a reliable source
Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion
The world will not end tomorrow
Write the article first
Writing better articles
Writing article content
Avoid thread mode
Copyediting reception sections
Coup
Don't throw more litter onto the pile
Gender-neutral language
Myth vs fiction
Proseline
Use our own words
We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions
Write the article first
Writing about women
Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content
Adjectives in your recommendations
AfD is not a war zone
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews
Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions
Arguments to make in deletion discussions
Avoid repeated arguments
Before commenting in a deletion discussion
But there must be sources!
Confusing arguments mean nothing
Content removal
Counting and sorting are not original research
Delete or merge
Delete the junk
Deletion is not cleanup
Does deletion help?
Don't attack the nominator
Don't confuse stub status with non-notability
Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
Follow the leader
How to save an article proposed for deletion
I just don't like it
Identifying blatant advertising
Identifying test edits
Immunity
Keep it concise
Liar liar pants on fire
Nothing
Nothing is clear
Overzealous deletion
Relisting can be abusive
Relist bias
The Heymann Standard
Unopposed AFD discussion
Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole
Why was the page I created deleted?
What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion
When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork
No Encyclopedic Use
Essays on civility
The basics
Accepting other users
Apology
Contributing to complicated discussions
Divisiveness
Don't retaliate
Edit at your own pace
Encouraging the newcomers
Enjoy yourself
Expect no thanks
High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors
How to be civil
Maintaining a friendly space
Negotiation
Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors
Please say please
Relationships with academic editors
Thank you
Too long; didn't read
Truce
Unblock perspectives
We are all Wikipedians here
You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy
A weak personal attack is still wrong
Advice for hotheads
An uncivil environment is a poor environment
Be the glue
Beware of the tigers!
Civility warnings
Deletion as revenge
Failure
Forgive and forget
It's not the end of the world
Nobody cares
Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals
Old-fashioned Wikipedian values
Profanity, civility, and discussions
Revert notification opt-out
Shadowless Fists of Death!
Staying cool when the editing gets hot
The grey zone
The last word
There is no Divine Right of Editors
Most ideas are bad
Nothing is clear
Reader
The rules of polite discourse
There is no common sense
Two wrongs don't make a right
Wikipedia clichés
Wikipedia is not about winning
Wikipedia should not be a monopoly
Writing for the opponent
Dos
Assume good faith
Assume the assumption of good faith
Assume no clue
Avoid personal remarks
Avoid the word "vandal"
Be excellent to one another
Beyond civility
Call a spade a spade
Candor
Deny recognition
Desist
Discussing cruft
Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
Encourage full discussions
Get over it
How to lose
Imagine others complexly
Just drop it
Keep it concise
Keep it down to earth
Mind your own business
Say "MOBY"
Mutual withdrawal
Read before commenting
Settle the process first
Don'ts
ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI
Civil POV pushing
Cyberbullying
Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack
Don't be a fanatic
Don't be a jerk
Don't be an ostrich
Don't be ashamed
Don't be a WikiBigot
Don't be high-maintenance
Don't be inconsiderate
Don't be obnoxious
Don't be prejudiced
Don't be rude
Don't be the Fun Police
Don't bludgeon the process
Don't call a spade a spade
Don't call people by their real name
Don't call the kettle black
Don't call things cruft
Don't come down like a ton of bricks
Don't cry COI
Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify
Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid
Don't eat the troll's food
Don't fight fire with fire
Don't give a fuck
Don't help too much
Don't ignore community consensus
Don't knit beside the guillotine
Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature
Don't remind others of past misdeeds
Don't shout
Don't spite your face
Don't take the bait
Don't template the regulars
Don't throw your toys out of the pram
Do not insult the vandals
Griefing
Nationalist editing
No angry mastodons
just madmen
No Nazis
No racists
No Confederates
No queerphobes
No, you can't have a pony
Passive aggression
POV railroad
Superhatting
There are no oracles
There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns
You can't squeeze blood from a turnip
UPPERCASE
WikiRelations
WikiBullying
WikiCrime
WikiHarassment
WikiHate
WikiLawyering
WikiLove
WikiPeace
Essays on notability
Advanced source searching
All high schools can be notable
Alternative outlets
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Articles with a single source
Avoid template creep
Bare notability
Big events make key participants notable
Businesses with a single location
But it's true!
Common sourcing mistakes
Clones
Coatrack
Discriminate vs indiscriminate information
Don't cite GNG
Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity
Every snowflake is unique
Existence ≠ Notability
Existence does not prove notability
Extracting the meaning of significant coverage
Google searches and numbers
High Schools
Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
Independent sources
Inherent notability
Insignificant
Masking the lack of notability
Make stubs
Minimum coverage
News coverage does not decrease notability
No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
No big loss
No one cares about your garage band
No one really cares
Notability/Historical/Arguments
Notability cannot be purchased
Notability comparison test
Notability is not a level playing field
Notability is not a matter of opinion
Notability is not relevance or reliability
Notability means impact
Notability points
Notability sub-pages
Notabilitymandering
Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article
Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability
Offline sources
One hundred words
One sentence does not an article make
Other stuff exists
Overreliance upon Google
Perennial websites
Pokémon test
Read the source
Reducing consensus to an algorithm
Run-of-the-mill
Solutions are mixtures and nothing else
Subjective importance
Third-party sources
Trivial mentions
Video links
Vanispamcruftisement
What BLP1E is not
What is and is not routine coverage
What notability is not
What to include
Wikipedia is not Crunchbase
Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé
Two prongs of merit
Humorous essays
Adminitis
Akin's Laws of Article Writing
Alternatives to edit warring
ANI flu
Anti-Wikipedian
Anti-Wikipedianism
Articlecountitis
Asshole John rule
Assume bad faith
Assume faith
Assume good wraith
Assume stupidity
Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith
Avoid using preview button
Avoid using wikilinks
Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
Barnstaritis
Before they were notable
BOLD, revert, revert, revert
Boston Tea Party
Butterfly effect
CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh?
Complete bollocks
Counting forks
Counting juntas
Crap
Don't stuff beans up your nose
Don't-give-a-fuckism
Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!
Don't delete the main page
Editcountitis
Edits Per Day
Editsummarisis
Editing Under the Influence
Embrace Stop Signs
Emerson
Fart
Five Fs of Wikipedia
Seven Ages of Editor, by Will E. Spear-Shake
Go ahead, vandalize
How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
How to get away with UPE
How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle
How to vandalize correctly
How to win a citation war
Ignore all essays
Ignore every single rule
Is that even an essay?
Mess with the templates
My local pond
Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them
Legal vandalism
List of jokes about Wikipedia
LTTAUTMAOK
No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
No one cares about your garage band
No one really cares
No, really
No sorcery threats
Notability is not eternal
Oops Defense
Play the game
Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
Please bite the newbies
Please do not murder the newcomers
Pledge of Tranquility
R-e-s-p-e-c-t
Requests for medication
Requirements for adminship
Rouge admin
Rouge editor
Sarcasm is really helpful
Sausages for tasting
The Night Before Wikimas
The first rule of Wikipedia
The Five Pillars of Untruth
Things that should not be surprising
The WikiBible
Watchlistitis
Wikipedia is an MMORPG
WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes
Why not create an account?
Yes legal threats
You don't have to be mad to work here, but
You should not write meaningless lists
About essays
About essays
Essay guide
Value of essays
Difference between policies, guidelines and essays