Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potential

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Since there's clearly a consensus against deletion and merging can be discussed outside of AfD, I'm closing this discussion. No prejudice against a possible merger with Potentiality and actuality, but that would require further discussion to achieve consensus. RL0919 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is poor disambiguation and there is already a disambiguation page Volunteer1234 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. This is not a disambiguation page, it is a WP:Broad-concept article (as with Particle and Window of opportunity) which provides the broadest parameters for the explanation of a concept that is difficult precisely due to its breadth. Wikipedia has a duty to develop these concepts rather than lazily sweeping them under the rug for the convenience of a disambiguation page that fails to explain the broadest parameters of the term. BD2412 T 19:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BD offers a solid argument, and I agree. It is currently mislabeled as a disambig, but is not in fact a disambig. While making a good article will be difficult here, as with any broad topic, thats not reason for deletion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a broad concept to be described here beyond a dictionary definition and distinct from a list of possible meanings. This article is Wikipedia's best effort so far at filling that gap. Certes (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:DABCONCEPT. This isn't a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep The stated deletion rationale just isn't applicable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What is the topic of the article then? The article has been in a sorry state for years. Originally it was a broad concept for physics, then it included "human potential" which was recently deleted and now it includes math. The "broad concept" can't be just a word WP:NOTDIC. Is the topic Potential (physics)? Even within physics "potential" has multiple meanings. Volunteer1234 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic of the article, as spelled out in the first sentence, is the concept of "a currently unrealized ability". There may be more artful ways to word that, but the applicability of this concept to multiple fields was described by Aristotle long before any of us were on the scene. BD2412 T 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think I'm convinced by what's written above. Yes, broad-concept articles exist, but that doesn't mean we can build one around any culturally prominent ambiguous word. Broad-concept articles are not exempt from basic policies like WP:OR and WP:V. Are there any sources out there that treat these disparate threads as a single topic? – Uanfala (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that it is not an ambiguous word, merely a word that is applicable to wide variety of situations. A boulder having potential to roll down a hill is no different in the characteristic of having an unfulfilled capacity that could be actualized through correct action than a student with the potential to become a scholar. The difference is only in the inputs required to actuate that potential. BD2412 T 04:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That may be so, but that doesn't waive the basic requirement of having sources discussing the broad topic as such (and not simply the various facets individually). I would tend to concur with Mark viking's comment below that the broad-concept topic is actually a philosophy article that already exists, but potentiality and actuality looks rather niche in its present state. – Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This one is tricky. On one hand, potientiality is an upper ontology philosophical concept applicable to many fields, including physics. Aristotle set forth this concept in his metaphysics. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Broad-concept_article#Approaches asserts that the article should not be so broad as to need expertise in multiple unrelated fields. My POV, is that the content of this article is more or less covered in potentiality and actuality, so merge there. However, the set of concepts of potential in physics, mathematics, chemistry, engineering, etc. are rather more tightly coupled and could make for a good broad concept article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no valid reason for deletion is given. There's lots of general articles, dabs, and categories to help our readers learn and navigate the website. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now and see if it can be made into something beyond WP:NOTDICT WP:NORUSH Wm335td (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wm335td:, are you saying that this article has potential? BD2412 T 02:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think based on your !vote rationale there is hope that there can be an article beyond a dictionary entry. Wm335td (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.