User:Serpent's Choice/Wikiphilosophy
Revision and deletion
It is probably possible, for any given topic, to write an article so poor, so incomplete, so inadequately documented, that it would enter the deletion process. And, for a wide array of reasons, no small number of articles are so written. I do not mean to condemn the authors; many people create articles about topics that they know exist, but that they know little about. Many editors are new and have not yet gotten a feel for the rythym of policies and guidelines. Quite a few contributors lack the assets and access that makes documentation easier.
But where I do find occasional fault is with the deletion process and its oft-overeager participants. To be certain, each day brings its share of
There is a critical difference between unverified and
Improve the web
There are a staggering amount of articles in the encyclopedia, and hitting
I suggest using the web of Wikipedia articles itself as a tool. Hit that random page button until an article appears that is clearly appropriate, clearly belongs in Wikipedia, but that clearly cannot stand in its current state. Sadly, it isn't likely to take long to reach one at this time. It might not be a familiar topic; in fact, it might be
Then, take a look at what links to it. Remember, all those pages were referring to the weak article that has now been revised into something better. Examine them, too. Verifying and citing the first article can probably give information for closely related concepts, too. Probably one of them will have been in dire condition itself. So, fix it, too. As more articles are revised and restructured and rehashed, the list of possible links to follow -- backward or forward through the web -- grows. Follow ones that are interesting, or ones that can be cited conveniently, or need the most help. But by improving the web using the web, the encyclopedia becomes stronger, more than the sum of its pages.
Historiography
A frequent discussion regarding notability in AfD is that encyclopedic notability must be persistant. This is the so-called five-year (or ten, or twenty, or one hundred) test: will there still be interest in this topic 5, 10, 20, or 100 years from now? I think this argument offers a