Wikipedia:Usual caveats
 | This is an essay. 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. |
 | This page in a nutshell: The subject of this deletion debate isn't notable – but they might become notable in the future. |
.JPG)
The term usual caveats, in the context of deletion debates, refers to the idea that an editor's recommendation is subject to change if certain external events take place. These caveats are ways to hedge one's bet, so to speak – a subject might not be notable at the time of the debate, but may become notable later. This applies in many cases where the subject is young, is at the outset of their career, or where their activities just haven't yet received the coverage necessary for an article.
The purpose of citing these usual caveats in the deletion debate is to specifically note that the subject's notability may change in the future, and to specifically highlight (and support in advance) the idea that a new article would be welcome if and when the subject's notability changes.
Living persons
[edit]Generally, articles for deletion involving living persons will center on the idea that the subject's accomplishments, or the coverage of those accomplishments, do not demonstrate notability. When recommending that the article for such a person be deleted, then, these caveats would apply.
A new article could be created for this subject if:
- The actor or actress receives a high-profile role in a notable production,
- The athlete signs with and competes for a top-tier professional team, or participates in the Olympic Games,
- The musician or band makes it onto the charts with a hit song, or wins a notable award for a new album or single,
- The politician wins a future election.
- The researcher publishes additional notable papers in the appropriate journals.
The core idea here is that the subject is not notable for their accomplishments, or for the coverage of those accomplishments, at the time of the deletion debate. For living subjects, the caveat is that they might later become notable, and in that case an article would be appropriate.
Recreating a deleted article
[edit]When an article is deleted via an articles for deletion debate, it cannot simply be recreated without addressing the concerns that led to its deletion in the first place. If the article was deleted because the subject was not notable at the time of the debate, you must show that the subject has since become notable – usually by showing that their activities since have met the relevant notability criteria. For your politician, you show that they have won or are a major candidate in an election. For musicians, you cite the fact that their latest single hit the charts.
Articles that are recreated where no new notability exists are likely to be deleted. This is a frequent enough occurrence that we have a speedy deletion criterion for such articles: criterion G4. Showing new notability is the only way (short of deletion review) to trump this criterion. Even then, the rationale for creating a new article must be clearly stated – why is the subject notable now, when they weren't then?