It is not always clear what a Wikipedia article is for or how it should be situated within Wikipedia. Sometimes these issues are related to the topic itself, sometimes due to the difficulties of molding that topic into a Wikipedia article. Unless these are directly highlighted and addressed in some way, these issues often cause an article to stall. In all, we can call these "what for?" problems, since they all are questions about what the purpose and focus of any given article should be.
The issues discussed here are complex and not always explicitly broached by the community of contributors, although this is some of the function served by talk pages and particular WikiProjects. We should clarify at the outset that no one editor gets to decide how to address these issues, but this is one reason they need to be highlighted so that more explicit space can be made for these difficulties to be worked out by the community of contributors. This applies with any issues discussed, but particularly in the case of these conceptual issues.
Wikipedia defines itself primarily in the negative as defined in the pillar known as WP:NOT. But this opens the question: What are some of its articles for? Many concepts and things clearly satisfy criteria for notability, and yet it is unclear what an encyclopedia article on that topic should consist of. Some of the issue has to do with unclear audience and situation: Why does anyone find themselves on that article? Some of the issues have to do with ambiguity about what constitutes significant knowledge about an otherwise important topic. In a print encyclopedia such articles may be short, but since each topic on Wikipedia has its own article and no material need to limit space, then the topic naturally invites content. At what point does someone decide what should go into such articles?
Concert: What goes in an article about concerts? Should it focus on their history? The types? The cultural significance? What constitutes significant and notable pieces of information for each of these? Who decides?
Marching: Military articles have historically received a lot of attention, and yet this one remains in rough shape as of 2022, in part because the kinds of substantial content one might add about marching are not usually to be found through that topic. One might find a lot about marching in books and sources about other things, but how do we draw out expert and verifiable content that will extract information about marching from other questions of military history? In addition, marching has extended far beyond military history to other uses, such as parade marching and marching bands. What should go in the specifically marching article?
Popular Culture: The way this term might be used and discussed in an encyclopedia might differ in many ways from the way it is used colloquially. That is, what constitutes knowledge about popular culture, or the analysis of it, will tend to lead the content of such an article in particular directions, which must nonetheless also leave space for these more casual uses of the term. In this case, substantive critiques of popular culture capable of being referenced do not always align with the casual manifestations of the critique or glorification of what is often referred to as pop culture in certain places. This tension can be seen in the way this article fragmented in multiple directions that aren't clearly related to each other, dealing with cultural criticism in part and a catalog of culture that could be considered popular in others.
Often important articles stall in unproductive forms because the topic itself is so general and must inevitably branch into many subarticles. These articles might get a lot of attention and may have content that is constantly changing. However, they can fail to move forward productively because there is no substantial discussion about what should go in the larger article as opposed to the branching ones, and significant work needs to be done to moderate the level and type of content in the parent article while monitoring the branching articles for evolving content. Even attention from experts in the topic in question might not be sufficient to stabilize the article into a sensible form as their closeness to the topic does not immediately make it clear what should go in the most general article as opposed to the branching articles.
Psychologist: Articles on a general topic like this often remain unrefined and heading in multiple directions, even as they branch out into more substantial and easily refined articles on more specific topics in psychology. What specifically should go in this article about psychologists rather than psychology? How does it relate to psychiatrists?
Jazz/Jazz Age: Often articles on a general topic will have sections about a subtopic, which also has its own page. In this case, the extensive section on the Jazz article about the Jazz Age needs to be coordinated with the material on the separate Jazz Age page.
Virtual Reality: When a portion of a topic grows in significance, it often expands beyond the scope of an article and warrants its own page, as specified by the guidelines on splitting articles. In this case, the applications of virtual reality had grown—both in reality and in the article—such that a whole new article needed to be created on Applications of Virtual Reality.
Prayer, Meditation, and Contemplation in Christianity: In this case, we have a meta-article that was created to unite the separate articles on related concepts. However, this particular meta-article also has conceptual ambiguities that does not lead it to a clear path forward (refer to the next section). Note: in 2023, this article was finally merged into Christian Prayer in this edit, which makes the above linked article no longer available.
Some topics are notoriously difficult to handle even by people who specialize in a topic. Yet Wikipedia needs to process these difficult topics and make sufficiently coherent articles that acknowledge these complexities while not becoming itself embroiled in the controversy. Policies on neutral point of view in WP:NPOV dictate that Wikipedia should not itself engage in debates but rather recognize when a debate or ambiguity exists—whether popularly or in scholarship—and report on the debate itself. However, it is often difficult for Wikipedia editors to escape the kinds of judgments and questions that often arise, even in articles that one would expect to be straightforward.
Sin: The concept of sin is already a complex one, but it is difficult to write an article about it in a succinct and neutral way that also takes into account a worldwide perspective. At one moment in its history, linked here, editors aiming to take a worldwide perspective on the topic added notes about the concept in a number of non-Judeo-Christian traditions. But this runs Wikipedians into a question of note for scholars of religion: Is the word sin appropriate for concepts of other traditions who may not have similar concepts? One editor even added a section on Buddhism that is about how there is no concept of sin in Buddhism; so does it make sense to have this content in the article about sin at all? In other words, the attempt to broaden beyond the Judeo-Christian concept of sin runs Wikipedia editors into questions about translation and the risks of comparing different concepts from different religions. Should the article on sin then be reorganized more fully around the Judeo-Christian notion? The major argument for doing so is that there is a lot more significant content that could be added about the history, nuances, and varieties of the notion of sin, but the organization according to traditions does not leave room for this content to be added, so the article stalled in this splintered form. (For a similar set of issues as manifest in a branching article, refer to Prayer, Meditation, and Contemplation in Christianity, an article which was simply merged into Christian Prayer in 2023.)
Absurdity: A term like absurdity can mean many things. In this case, the organization of the article tended towards the different uses of the term, leading to a fragmented article. In some cases, this structure can lead to separate articles for each relevant topic, with a parenthetical clarification of the topic and a disambiguation page to link out to the different uses (refer to, for example, Ontology and Ontology (information science)). But in this case, the content for each potential meaning of "absurdity" is insufficient for its own page. Even if such disambiguated pages were created, what should go in the main absurdity page?
While Wikipedia's standards on notability do not technically apply to the content within articles, sometimes what makes a topic notable and thus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia may be different from what that article appears to be. In such cases, the article appears to be about one topic, but it stalls because what is significant is actually a particular aspect of that topic. This can result in a confusing article that seems to be about two very separate things.
Desilo: This article began by framing Desilo as a geographical location. However, the geographical location is only notable because of the archaeological discoveries found there. The result was an article that stalled into a fractured and incoherent form. If we change the emphasis to fit what was notable (refer to this edit), this can create a space and direction for future editors to contribute in a way that fit extant noteworthy information and sources.
Sharon Springs, NY: There are a few reasons that this small town of about 600 people deserves its own Wikipedia page, but they are not necessarily the standard reasons for a Wikipedia page about a small town. Although it is a historic site, it was also the location of a reality TV show. The content of this article thus must handle multiple different purposes and audiences, while still avoiding being promotional (WP:Promo).
Feminism in Mexico: What is notable about feminism in Mexico specifically? This article, which has improved vastly since a student intervened in 2019 (refer to before edit and the 2022 edit), contained a section on Gender Rebels, which is a particular movement in Mexico, but which did not seamlessly integrate the structure of the rest of the article. Perhaps at some point this term will move to its own page, but, for now, these two kinds of information about feminism in Mexico stand in a bit of an unclear relationship.
Achilles and Patroclus: Why is it worth having a separate article about Achilles and Patroclus when there is content about them on their separate pages and on the Illiad page? The answer: The relationship itself has been the subject of sufficient interest and controversy that it deserves its own page reporting on this controversy. But this presents the extra editing difficulty of focusing the page on the particularly notable aspects of their relationship and the history of interpretations of it, particularly in relation to homosexuality and pederasty.[16]
[16] This was at one point noted as the Bonnie and Clyde problem by Wikipedians, as is discussed here.
A related issue arises when the focus of an article becomes skewed towards one way of thinking about the topic at hand. For example, a relatively widespread and not overly technical term might be primarily occupied by a more specialized, technical, or scientific view without space for handling these different ways into the topic. Sometimes background information begins to take over parts of the content to an excessive degree. Another form is when a particular subculture's view of a topic primarily directs an article. In these cases, some discussion and work needs to be done to make space for other kinds of content appropriate for the article.
Meadow: In this case, the article is primarily about the scientific perspective (ecological and agricultural). There are portions of the content that are about anthropological and cultural ways of thinking about meadows, but these approaches don't have space in the article at this point.
Mushroom Hunting: This article is written almost wholly for those who are involved in mushroom hunting, including sections on how to mushroom hunt, which is a violation of WP:NOT. Sections contain more general information, but these are lost in the rest of the content and don't have clear space in the organizational structure, which tends to prevent other contributors from fully fleshing out the other information.
Human Rights Education: In addition to being written like an essay and other problems with NPOV, this article also contains an inappropriate amount of content about Human Rights itself, which is already part of an extensive separate article.
Food Blogging: This article is written towards an audience that is already familiar with the food blog scene, evidenced by terminology used throughout this article and what has been added by the community. For example, there is an emphasis on how these influencers make money rather than focusing on this medium's effect on the world at large.
Similar to skewed emphasis, some topics are by their nature particular, in that they only become significant terms worthy of Wikipedia articles because of a particular use that makes them inevitably hard to handle. Also in this category we can include topics that are related to issues that are difficult or controversial to handle in any writing, let alone in Wikipedia. The writing tact and modes of evidence required for these articles necessitates extra careful editing and explicit justifications.
Friends with Benefits Relations: This term and idea is particular to a certain culture and time period, even if the practice is not. Should the article be about the term or about casual sexual relationships? Should research on casual sexual relations be located somewhere else? Should this just be a redirect to another page?
Infotainment: This term emerged within a particular moment in media forms and a conversation about their value within a limited region and time. There is a degree of judgment in the term, which then becomes reflected in the focus and structure of the content. The article must handle this particularity while also evolving with the concept as it no longer becomes new and might take on different implications and be studied in a different way.
African-American Representation in Hollywood: This article is notable because it is about a problem. One would not necessarily think to have other representations of X in Hollywood unless they are subject of significant commentary and research. In this case, the focus, content, and organization must approach the problem in the same manner that researchers assess this problem and have attempted to understand it.
Internal Monologue: This informal term was rather unclear and was inviting some confusing content that was hard to provide good sources for. Substantial work on this topic is usually researched under other terms. Since there was no significant way to talk about the topic separately from what can be found in Intrapersonal communication, the two were merged.
Of course, not all topics remain the same over time. Things that might be notable in 2009 might not be as relevant in 2019. Terms and ideas that mean one thing might come to mean something else. How does Wikipedia handle this transition and deal with the legacies of the older senses of a topic? Examples are easy to find and require some strong editorial intervention to improve.
Podcast: When this article was first created, podcasts were new, their form and significance untested. Fifteen years later, this article still shows some evidence of much older ways of thinking and writing about podcasts. At this point in 2020, it needed a significant reorganization to more clearly open up space for new information about this still significant form of media.
Millipede Memory: At one point, this particular computer memory type was thought to be an important development, but it was not subsequently developed. Insofar as the article should continue to exist, it now needs to become an historical article rather than an article based on current technology.
2009 Swine Flu Pandemic in Australia: Like many current events on Wikipedia, this article was written in 2009 when the swine flu pandemic in Australia was happening. Now it needs to switch gears and be written from a more historical standpoint rather than as a current public health issue.
2008 Coca-Cola 600: This was written in 2008, before the event had even happened yet, but now that it has, the topic of the article changes, and therefore the content needs to reflect that change.
Fanfiction.net: Many companies, websites, and media change in terms of form, significance, and status over time, sometimes requiring significant reworking to fit their current status. For example, in addition to problems related to handling a specialized audience, the page for Fanfiction.net remains primarily written from circa 2005 perspective in 2022.