Wikipedia:Deletion policy

The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how material which does not meet the relevant content criteria is identified and removed from Wikipedia.

All text created in the Wikipedia main Namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (NOT), encyclopedic quality (V and OR), editorial approach (NPOV), as well as the Wikipedia Copyrights. Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, is usually deleted.

Deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and page history from view. Unlike VANDAL#Types_of_vandalism, which can be performed (or reverted) by any user, deletion can be performed only by Administrators. In the normal operations of Wikipedia, over one thousand articles are Articles for deletion each day, in accordance with a deletion process that is open to all users.

This page describes how articles which are believed to be suitable for deletion should be handled, explains the various deletion options and processes, and summarizes a number of common problems with Wikipedia articles that may call for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion.

For deletion due to copyright issues, when and how this should be done, and alternatives, see: Copyright problems.

For a guide to deletion discussions, especially if your content is listed for deletion, see Guide to deletion.

For the administrators' deletion guide, see Deletion guidelines for administrators.

Background

Anyone except blocked users is welcome to participate in nominating articles for deletion or discussion of existing nominations. Participants in the deletion process should read (and be familiar with) the core Wikipedia policies of V, NOR and NPOV first, since deletion is based upon policy and not personal likes and dislikes.

They should also bear in mind NOT, and not abuse the deletion processes.

Finally, it's worth noting that (as with all Wikipedia Consensus decisions), the purpose of a discussion is to bring out a "sense of the community" and the valid points for or against each view. So deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing.

Deletion processes

There are three main processes for deleting articles, in order:

{| border="1" cellpadding="4"

! Process !! Usage !! How to do it speedy deletions Pages that are suitable for instant deletion, being Patent nonsense or vandalism and which can obviously be deleted on sight Either list on speedy deletions or quick-flag the article for speedy deletion using Proposed deletion Articles whose deletion should be uncontroversial but which don't meet the "utter rubbish" criteria for speedy deletion. This is often used for articles which appear to have genuine content but which the deleter feels are NOT for Wikipedia, such as advertising, vanity articles, and the like Flag with which will also place it into Category:Proposed deletion; if the deletion is not contested by anyone for five days it can be deleted at an administrator's discretion. Contested prods may be moved to AFD for fuller discussion Articles for deletion A five-day public debate and discussion on the merits of the article and its best treatment. Applicable to all articles where deletion is unsure, seriously contested, or may need debate, and all borderline or controversial cases. List page on AFD, following the process on that page

Other types of deletion have their own similar processes, described on pages such as:

Collectively, these processes, together with Articles for deletion, are sometimes referred to as the XfD processes.

Deletion lag times

Each deletion category has a slightly different procedure. After an appropriate lag time, an administrator will delete the page if a Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus is reached, with the actual deletion procedure as described in Deletion process.

The current lag times are:

Copyright problems - about a week (in practice, more like two)
Categories for discussion - about a week
Images for deletion - about a week
Redirects for deletion - about a week
Templates for deletion - seven days
Stub types for deletion - seven days
Speedy deletions - no lag
Articles for deletion - five days
Miscellany for deletion - five days

Problem articles where deletion may be needed

Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see NOT)
No original research (including the coining of neologisms) - but if it's a source text, it should be Transwiki to Wikisource (see below).
Vanity page
Advertising or other spam
Completely idiosyncratic non-topic

Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted guidelines:

MUSIC (for bands)
BIO (for biographies)
FICT (for fictional characters)

User page in excessive or stubborn cases.
Wholly inappropriate pages in the project (Wikipedia:), Help:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, and various talk namespaces, where discussion, Renaming (moving) a page, merge, or simple editing cannot resolve the problem.

If you must, list on Redirects for deletion but only after reading our Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect?.

Check that Wiktionary does not already have a dictionary article. If a Wiktionary article does not already exist, transwiki the article to Wiktionary. Afterwards, either replace with a soft redirect or list the article for deletion.

Patent nonsense (total gibberish)
Pages created just to vandalism or disrupt

In simple cases, just add the {{deletebecause}} tag and the page will automatically be listed in CSD.

**Problems that may require deletion**
Problem with page	Solution	Add this tag
	List on Articles for deletion (WP:AFD).	See AfD in 3 steps for instructions and tags.
	List on Articles for deletion (WP:AFD).	See AfD in 3 steps for instructions and tags.
	List on Miscellany for deletion (WP:MfD).	See Miscellany_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion for instructions and tags.
Article is possible copyright infringement	List on Copyright problems.	`{{copyvio}}` or `{{copyvio}}`
Image is possible copyright infringement	List on Copyright problems.	`{{imagevio}}` or `{{imagevio}}`
Image or other media needs deleting (but not because of copyright violation)	List on Images for deletion.	See Images_and_media_for_deletion#Listing_images_and_media_for_deletion for instructions and tags.
A useless redirect	Don't worry; redirects are cheap.	See Redirects_for_deletion/Header#How_to_list_a_redirect_for_deletion for instructions and tags.
A category scheme gone awry	List on Categories for discussion.	See Categories for discussion/Howto for instructions and tags.
A redundant or misguided series box.	List on Templates for deletion.	`{{tfd}}` (Put in the box itself.)
A redundant or misguided stub template or category.	List on Stub types for deletion.	`{{sfd-c}}` for stub categories `{{sfd-t}}` for stub templates
Can never be other than a Wikipedia is not a dictionary ("dicdef")	Turn the article into a redirect (or rename and refactor it) as per Naming conventions (adjectives) and Naming conventions (verbs).	See Things to be moved to Wiktionary for instructions and tags.
Article is a source text (but not a copyvio)	Transwiki text to Wikisource and replace it with a stub and a soft redirect.
Article is a Hoaxes (not an article about a hoax)	List on Suspected hoax articles and/or propose deletion.	and/or use .
Article is a Criteria for speedy deletion including:	List on Speedy deletions.	`{{db}}`

Problem articles where deletion may not be needed

If you can't figure out how to perform the merger, tag it and list on Proposed mergers. If that doesn't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted. If that doesn't work, come back here. Mention it on Vandalism in progress if appropriate. Add user to Requests for comment if necessary.

Problem with page	Solution	Add this tag
Article written in a foreign language	List on Pages needing translation.	`{{notenglish}}`
A stub (but with potential)	Guide to improving articles!	`{{stub}}`, or preferably the topic-specific one from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types
Article resembles a dictionary article	Modify the introduction Guide to writing better articles#Use_of_.27refers_to.27, "means", and other such phrases.	`{{stub}}`, or preferably the topic-specific one from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types
Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article	Merging and moving pages the useful content into a more comprehensive article and Redirect.	`{{mergeto}}`
Article duplicates information in some other article	Cleanup or propose merge and Redirect.	`{{merge}}`
Article needs improvement	List on Cleanup.	`{{cleanup}}`, or preferably a Template_messages/Cleanup#Cleanup_.E2.80.94_specific_issues.
Article needs a lot of improvement	List on Pages needing attention.	`{{attention}}`
Article is biased or has lots of POV	List on Pages needing attention.	`{{npov}} or {{POV check}}`
Dispute over article content	List on Requests for comments.	`{{disputed}}`
Two subjects have the same name	Make a Disambiguation page.	`{{disambig}}`
Can't verify information in article	Follow the procedure on Verifiability.	`{{cleanup-verify}}`
Inappropriate User page	Talk to the user.
vandalism or inaccuracy	Revert it.
Annoying or incivil user	Staying cool when the editing gets hot.	Add {{civil1}} or {{civil2}}
Any problem with a community-accepted policy or guideline page, including instruction creep.	Make the proposal on the talk page, seek comment in community discussion areas.

Nominating an article for deletion

See the instructions at SPEEDY, PROD, or AFD accordingly. Following the procedures properly will place a warning at the top of the article to notify readers that the article is being considered for deletion. If no such notice is added please add one yourself as appropriate.

Please note warning notices may vary for Copyright problems, and they may not be required for pages that have no content (blank pages or Redirect) and have no significant history ("significant history" includes any history of content being added or removed, excepting candidates for speedy deletion).

Renominations and recurring candidates

Think carefully. Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination.

A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion (if kept) or re-created (if deleted). The most common reason for a repeat nomination is that there was marked lack of discussion or lack of consensus in the original decision and the second vote is required to clarify opinion. Otherwise:

{| border="0" cellpadding="4" Repeated nomination for deletion In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy and not opinion. Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and the article may be Speedy keep. Repeated recreation of deleted article If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Wikipedia article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in FAITH may well be reasonable. This underlines that research and good writing is part of creating good articles. Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article. But recreation of articles which should clearly remain deleted may result in the page being page protection to prevent its recreation.

Renomination of an article previously considered on AfD should include this template, , which will prevent overwriting of the previous discussion:

Transwikied articles

Please note that if the original discussion result was to "transwiki," the page becomes a candidate for speedy deletion once the transwiki is completed, and does not need to go through AfD again.

Abuse of deletion process

The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. XfD processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be SK.

It should also be noted that packing the discussion with sockpuppets (multiple accounts) and SOCK (advertising or soliciting of desired views) does not reflect a genuine consensus, and usually doesn't raise much in the way of novel policy considerations. A deletion debate is not a popular vote, but a way of obtaining editors' views as to whether an article meets policy guidelines or not, so these kind of activities don't achieve much. Often, where sock-puppetry is suspected, only editors with a significant history of contributions to Wikipedia will be counted in the rough consensus.

Deletion discussions, closure, reviewing

Commenting on a listing for deletion

Please see the appropriate instructions at SPEEDY, PROD, or AFD accordingly. In general, when someone has listed an article for deletion, anyone else may comment on the request. Please include your opinion and your reasoning and SIGN with ~~~~. Typical comments include "delete, "keep," "comment:", "redirect to article," "merge into article and redirect," "move to Wiktionary / Meta / other GFDL site", "keep and relist in 4 weeks" et al.

Commonly used shorthands can be found at the Guide to deletion. Note that "merge into article and delete" cannot be performed simply by copying and pasting text from the original article into the target unless the information on authorship of the content is somehow preserved, or the text is public domain. Otherwise, only the facts may be merged by completely rewriting the relevant text, so that none of the original copyrightable expression is used.

Please do not remove any statements from any deletion discussion. If you suspect a user of adding multiple comments using Sock puppet, feel free to comment and provide pertinent links. The admin who reviews the discussion will investigate and decide whether or not to take that opinion into account.

Decision policy

At the end of the discussion, if a Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Deletion process; otherwise the page remains.

Deletion guidelines for administrators expands on this and provides a little rationale.

Early closure

If a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period, for example, a clear consensus for speedy deletion, a clear consensus for a speedy keep, or a consensus for a redirect. The debate should remain transcluded on the appropriate deletion page. If the proposed solution has not achieved a very clear consensus, the listing should remain for the full five-day period. Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea.

Deletion review and undeletion

Deletion review discussions can lead to Undeletion policy, a task performed by Administrators if there is support or if a page has obviously been deleted out of process. Undeletion of pages is limited to those pages that are kept in the archive. Some older deleted pages are completely inaccessible.

Gourt Home::Gourt :: Wikipedia:Deletion policy