Wikipedia:Why should I care?

Sometimes articles on AfD are about subjects which hint that they may be notable. They allude to meeting the guidelines at WP:CORP or WP:BIO or WP:NMG, suggesting that the articles should be kept. But the actual evidence is missing, and significant effort would often be required to fix substantial problems with the text (usually vanispamcruftisement), or the information is unverified or uncited or reads like original research. It would require a lot of work to fix, and in the end that invites the question: Why should I care? Starting an article on a subject where you can't be bothered to write at least a proper stub is also widely seen as a bad idea.

To avoid this fate it is best if article authors strive to provide evidence of meeting the guidelines, especially by providing citations from reliable sources. The more evidence there is that the subject is verifiable from reliable sources, so we can ensure it's covered neutrally, the more likely it is that someone will care enough to help fix whatever problem caused it to land up at AfD in the first place. Wikipedia editors are an energetic bunch, and every imaginable enthusiasm is represented here. On the other hand, writing half a sentence and expecting someone else to come along and finish the job is not particularly helpful – if you don't know enough, or can't find the time, to write a decent start to an article, why not visit Requested Articles, which exists specifically to allow you to ask for articles on subjects you think need coverage?