![]() |
|||||||||||||
|
Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators |
| This page documents an English Wikipedia deletion guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
| Deletion policy |
Even admins should mostly use the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion pages when they think a page should be deleted. There are a few limited exceptions, which are given at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Every admin should also read and understand Wikipedia:Deletion policy.
Once the decision to delete (or not) has been made, please document the decision using the procedures at Wikipedia:Deletion process.
Contents |
Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new user id whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. If a rough consensus holds that the nomination was made in bad faith, the page may be speedily kept.
Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if someone finds the entire page to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant.
Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions.
An important rule of thumb when including biographical articles about living persons in Wikipedia is "do no harm".
With regards to living people, a closing admin must take into account our policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (Note - these are presently under discussion):
Here are some guidelines administrators should follow in making the decision to delete a page or not, when considering entries on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
Here are some guidelines administrators should follow in making the decision to delete a page or not, when considering entries on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (commonly abbreviated as WP:CFD, CFD, or cfd).
In five easy steps:
Not hard, just a little time consuming. Deleting a category is harder since (without assistance from a bot) the references have to be deleted by hand.
An administrator can delete some revisions of an article while leaving all remaining ones intact. The effect of this procedure is that the deleted revisions will not show in the page history and will be available only to administrators. Technically, this is accomplished by completely deleting the article and then undeleting only some revisions, so that the other ones remain deleted (this is the simplest method but has some drawbacks; see Wikipedia:Selective deletion for a more complex but better solution).
Because of GFDL requirements, selective deletion should only be done in certain extreme circumstances. Situations where such a selective deletion might be warranted include copyright violations that occur only in certain revisions, or personally identifying information that has been deemed inappropriate by consensus.
Since the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, various IP addresses and accounts have been making vandalistic edits using large, libelous edit summaries. At this time, the only way to remove these edit summaries is to delete the entire article, and select each of the non-libelous revisions to be undeleted.
The libel vandal(s) have been hitting pages with huge edit histories, such as George W. Bush and Wikipedia:Deletion review. It takes an enormous amount of time to remove bad edit summaries from these pages, during which the actual page is unavailable. This process also puts a strain on the servers, temporarily slowing access to Wikimedia projects.
Please do not delete pages with long edit histories for this purpose. Instead, ask a developer or an oversight to delete the specific oldids.
Pages that are repeatedly re-created after deletion in unencyclopedic form or against policy can be protected from further re-creation. This practice is commonly known as "padlocking", salting the earth, or simply 'salting'. This is done by one of the following:
Before it was possible to protect a page that did not exist, or was deleted, common practice was to transclude the article onto a page with cascading protection enabled, such as Wikipedia:Protected titles.