Wikipedia:Adopt-an-article
 | This is an essay on the deletion policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Adopting an article means that an editor in good standing has deliberately reviewed an article created or substantially edited by a sanctioned editor and is willing to take responsibility for its content in its present form. Adoption does not confer ownership of the article, nor does it prevent ordinary editing or deletion through normal processes. It may, however, remove the rationale for certain forms of deletion that depend on the identity or status of the article's original creator rather than on the merits of the content itself. |
Article adoption is an informal process by which an editor in good standing reviews an article created or substantially edited by an editor subject to a sanction, such as a ban or block, and affirmatively accepts responsibility for the article's content in its present form.
The concept is particularly relevant to criterion G5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which applies to certain pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their sanctions. Adoption reflects the principle that while Wikipedia may refuse to accept contributions made in violation of a sanction, useful encyclopedic content need not necessarily be discarded when an uninvolved editor has independently reviewed it and is prepared to stand behind it.
Adoption is not ownership. An adopter gains no special authority over an article and has no greater right than any other editor to control its subsequent development.
What adoption means
[edit]An editor adopting an article should have actually reviewed it, rather than merely made an incidental edit. In doing so, the adopter is effectively saying:
- I have reviewed this article independently of its sanctioned creator. I believe that its current content is suitable for Wikipedia, subject to the ordinary editorial and deletion processes, and I am willing to take responsibility for retaining it.
Adoption therefore transfers the practical basis for retaining the article away from the sanctioned editor's contribution and toward the independent judgment of an editor who is entitled to contribute.
It does not mean that the adopter guarantees that every statement is correct, that every source is reliable, or that the article could never be deleted. The adopter is simply asserting that they have reviewed the article sufficiently to believe that it should be treated like an ordinary Wikipedia article rather than deleted solely because of its provenance.
Adoption is not ownership
[edit]Adoption should not be confused with ownership of articles.
An adopter:
- does not acquire control over the article;
- cannot prevent other editors from changing it;
- does not have a privileged position in content disputes;
- does not become the article's "author" for Wikipedia purposes; and
- cannot prevent the article from being nominated at Articles for deletion or subjected to any other normal editorial process.
The term adoption describes responsibility for reviewing content, not authority over it.
Indeed, after adoption, the article should normally be treated in the same way as comparable articles created by editors in good standing.
When adoption may be useful
[edit]Adoption is most relevant when a page is liable to deletion for reasons connected with who created it, rather than because the content itself is unsuitable.
The clearest example is G5, which permits speedy deletion of certain pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their sanctions, provided that the page has not received substantial contributions from others.
If an uninvolved editor in good standing has independently reviewed the article and affirmatively adopted it, speedy deletion may no longer serve its intended purpose, as an unsanctioned editor has independently determined that the content is worth retaining.
Adoption does not immunize an article from deletion. If there are concerns about notability, verifiability, neutrality, copyright, or other content policies, these remain applicable. Where appropriate, the article may be improved, tagged, merged, redirected, or taken to AfD.
How to adopt an article
[edit]Adoption should be explicit. An ordinary edit, copyedit, addition of a category, or other incidental contribution should not normally be interpreted as adoption.
An editor wishing to adopt an article may make a substantive review of the article and then record that review in an edit summary, for example:
- Reviewed article; adopting existing content – see WP:ADOPTARTICLE
or:
- Reviewed for sourcing, content and mainspace suitability; adopting article per WP:ADOPTARTICLE
The editor may make improvements at the same time, but adoption need not require rewriting material merely to establish a new authorship history. The important element is independent review rather than the quantity of text changed.
Where circumstances are complicated, particularly when an article is already tagged for speedy deletion, it may also be useful to explain the adoption on the article's talk page or in the relevant deletion discussion.
What should an adopter review?
[edit]There is no mechanical checklist that can establish whether an article is acceptable. Nevertheless, before adopting an article, an editor should normally consider at least:
- whether the subject appears to satisfy the applicable notability requirements;
- whether significant claims are supported by apparently appropriate reliable sources;
- whether the article contains obvious copyright violations or close paraphrasing;
- whether the article contains serious neutrality, biographical, promotional, or factual problems; and
- whether the article is sufficiently suitable for mainspace that ordinary editing or deletion processes are preferable to deletion based solely on its provenance.
Adoption is therefore more than a declaration that an editor likes an article. It represents an independent editorial review.
Editors should exercise particular caution when adopting articles in areas where they lack sufficient familiarity to recognize sourcing, copyright, or content problems.
Adoption before deletion
[edit]The simplest case occurs when an article has not yet been deleted.
An editor who discovers that an otherwise useful article is eligible or potentially eligible for G5 may review it, make any necessary improvements, and explicitly adopt it.
If a speedy-deletion tag has already been placed, the adopter should follow the normal procedures for contesting speedy deletion rather than simply removing the tag where this would be contrary to the instructions on the template.
Adoption should not be used merely as a procedural device to defeat G5. An editor who has not meaningfully reviewed the article should not declare it adopted simply because they oppose its deletion.
Adoption after deletion
[edit]An editor may sometimes discover a useful article only after it has been deleted under G5.
In such cases the editor may request access to the deleted content through an appropriate process such as WP:REFUND, explaining that they wish to review and potentially adopt the article.
If the material is restored to draft or userspace, the prospective adopter should review it as they would any other article. Problems should be corrected before it is returned to mainspace.
Once an editor in good standing has independently reviewed the restored material and accepts responsibility for its current form, there is ordinarily little purpose in requiring the editor to rewrite acceptable prose merely to distance the article from its sanctioned creator. Wikipedia's objective is to build an encyclopedia, not to require the duplication of useful editorial labour.
This does not apply to material that cannot legally or appropriately be reused, most importantly copyright violations.
Page history and attribution
[edit]Adoption does not itself determine what should happen to an article's previous revision history.
Wikipedia's licensing requirements may require preservation of attribution when material written by previous contributors is retained. At the same time, other considerations, including the handling of contributions by banned editors, may affect whether particular revisions should remain publicly visible.
Editors and administrators should therefore follow the applicable policies on history merging, revision deletion, attribution, and copyright rather than treating adoption itself as authority either to restore or suppress previous revisions.
Where an article is restored substantially in its previous form, its talk page and relevant article history may also contain useful information that should not be lost merely because the article was temporarily deleted.
Do not adopt blindly
[edit]Adoption should not become a loophole by which sanctioned editors can recruit other editors to preserve their work without meaningful review.
An adopter should therefore exercise their own editorial judgment.
Repeatedly adopting articles on behalf of a banned editor without meaningful independent review may raise the same concerns as other attempts to proxy for a sanctioned user. Conversely, independently encountering an article, reviewing it, and deciding that its encyclopedic content is worth retaining does not make the adopter responsible for the conduct of its original creator.
The relevant question is not whether the adopter agrees with the sanctioned editor. It is whether an editor entitled to contribute to Wikipedia has independently examined the content and decided to stand behind its retention.
Why adoption can be useful
[edit]Sanctions are imposed on editors, not on subjects.
Without some concept analogous to adoption, a sanctioned editor could in some circumstances impose costs on the encyclopedia simply by writing about worthwhile subjects. Other editors might then have to recreate acceptable material from scratch even when they independently agree that it belongs in the encyclopedia.
Adoption provides a distinction between accepting the editing of a sanctioned user and accepting encyclopedic content after independent review by an unsanctioned editor.
This is compatible with the purpose of sanctions while avoiding unnecessary destruction or duplication of useful work.
It also preserves the distinction between speedy deletion and ordinary deletion discussion. Once an editor in good standing has independently reviewed and accepted responsibility for an article, disagreements about the article's encyclopedic merits can generally be resolved through normal editorial processes.