Wikipedia:Deletion and deletionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

Deletion refers to the processes used on Wikipedia for removing articles, images, miscellaneous pages, user pages, stubs, and categories. While any user (with a fully activated account) can create new pages on Wikipedia at any time, this is not the case with removing pages. Wikipedia has very strict policies and procedures for the removal of pages in various circumstances, generally requiring group discussion and finally a sysadmin to do the actual removal. This is necessary to prevent the most destructive forms of vandalism and censorship which, if direct deletion were allowed, could cripple Wikipedia, making large sections of it unavailable at any given time.

Contents

[edit] Why do articles get deleted?

Articles usually get nominated for deletion for one of three reasons:

  1. They cannot be verified. In order to conform to policy, each article must present reliable source references which support its facts. By extension, Original research is disallowed and is subject to deletion, as it can't be verified with reliable sources. Original research is anything that hasn't been reported in reputable public media, and includes things like your personal discoveries and observations, personal opinions, and speculative writing. [Your essay "My trip to the zoo last Friday", or your unpublished or non-notable treatise on "The fine art of nosepicking" are not appropriate because they are directly from the source (you), though Wikipedia does have an article on nosepicking. -TT ]
  2. They have to be notable. While Wikipedia theoretically has infinite space for any topic, we cannot currently prevent vandalism, false information, or copyright infringements on many articles. As a result, Wikipedia has a strict list of things we don't allow. Many articles about lesser known events -- local musicians, websites, companies, small groups, minor business or educational professionals, and the like -- simply aren't noted enough by the public to be worth the opportunity cost of maintaining an article on such. Articles can show notability by having a source that shows external coverage of the topic.
  3. They have to meet legal requirements. Biographies cannot contain libel, for example. We are limited in what we can use that isn't freely licenced, and we cannot accept any copyrighted material without specific permissions by the copyright owners.

Comment: Note that most articles do not (yet) have references included. This brings up the obvious questions "Why haven't they been deleted?" and "Why were they allowed to be placed on Wikipedia in the first place, without references?" The simple answer is "Wikiprudence".

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If article submissions were somehow blocked for lack of references, then far fewer people would submit new pages to Wikipedia because tracking down references is a lot harder than simply writing what you know about a subject from memory. Plus, there is no easy way to automatically check articles for appropriate references - that takes humans to do.

To require human screening of new articles would create a huge bottleneck which could significantly delay the display of new pages, which might also discourage participation. So, new pages without references are allowed to be added to Wikipedia by default, even though they are in violation of Wikipedia's verification policy. Any such page is subject to deletion at any time, but the deletion process provides the opportunity for fixing any problems before a final decision is made, so it's not as bad as it sounds.

So far, most pages that lack references have never been nominated for deletion, because it isn't typical for a user to nominate an article that seems plausible or conforms to what the user already knows about the subject. This is mostly because there are so many other more important things to do on Wikipedia with one's scarce resource of time, such as delete articles which are blatantly false. So many editors prefer to tag an article with requests for reference citations, or to track down and provide the references themselves, rather than nominate such articles for deletion. --The Transhumanist 02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Correction: the only policy governing content is verifiability, original research (none is allowed) and What Wikipedia Is Not, to keep this an encyclopedia. There is no requirement for references or "notability". Dan100 (Talk) 12:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Notability is in practice a requirement for "high" or "strict" verifiability, and articles are regularly deleted through all deletion mechanisms for being non-notable. —Centrx→talk • 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - when considering criteria for deletion such as "Original research, violates WP:NOR policy", it is worth remembering that "Article contains original research (commonly abbreviated to OR)" and "Article is OR" are two completely different things.

  • "Article contains OR" is not a criterion to delete an entire article, just to remove those sections. The remaining material should then be judged on its own merits. (Example: an article about zoos in general, which also includes "My trip to the zoo last Friday".)
  • "Article is OR" should be used when the vast majority of the article's content is OR, or the article's very topic is OR. In such cases, the article is a valid candidate for deletion. (Example: an article solely about "My trip to the zoo last Friday".)

However, even an article that is mostly OR might contain some well-sourced material. This material might be suitable to be merged into a "parent topic" article. For example, an article about a music single might contain a large amount of OR. The OR can be removed, and any sourced information remaining can be merged into an appropriate article - one about the album that single comes from, perhaps. Once any useful content like this has been salvaged, the article can be deleted. Quack 688 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment
: Unsourced articles are kept even after screening because editors assume good faith that these details can become sourced. Most of the unsourced materials that get kept are those which do not include overwhelmingly weird claims and personal experience, just factual information which are verifiably correct (not the sense of "verifiable" in WP:V, but the sense that one can repeat the experiment and get the same result). If the writer can put the information here, he can also publish the same information elsewhere. By then it is quite likely that the information can become sourced. --Deryck C. 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why do other pages get deleted?

Images are usually deleted because of copyright problems - if the proper release isn't included, an image must go. User pages and categories and the like are internal matters that are deleted either because they are disrupting Wikipedia, or to make way for a more efficient method.

[edit] A five-step approach to deletion

Before we cover the specific procedures on how to delete articles, lets examine how the deletion processes and policies are best applied, including a rational approach to deciding whether or not an article should be put through the deletion process in the first place. The deletion process can use up a lot of time and effort on the part of many users, and if this can be prevented through forethought and article revision, then so much the better. The following five step approach helps keep things in perspective, and ensures that the deletion processes are not misapplied:

  1. Verify
  2. Determine
  3. Examine
  4. Submit
  5. Review

[edit] Step One: Verify if the article in question can be improved rather than be deleted

This simple step is often ignored, especially by Wikipedians scanning over new pages contributed by anonymous authors, but you should always do it. Many people create stubs, or very short articles, with the intention of trying to expand them later. Many of these article may, at first glance, fail Wikipedia policy. See if you can find any sources easily with a 2 minute Google search. See how many Google hits the article has. If you can't easily find any sources and there are very few Google hits relating to the article, go on to step two. If you CAN find sources, though, go ahead and add references to the article. Make sure it is categorized correctly, add the appropriate stub template if applicable, and if it's not a stub tag it as in need of expansion. (Tagging means placing a standard template message on the page, usually at the top). This simple process will ensure that others can expand the article, and that if someone comes across it looking for information, they will have sources to explore further.

[edit] Step Two: Determine if the article violates any speedy deletion criteria.

Some people would make this the first step, but that would be incorrect, since some articles that are notable might be written in a way that doesn't assert notability, or might include original research you can remove. However, if you've gone through step one and can't find good sources, check the article against the list of speedy deletion criteria. Here's my rule of thumb:

“ If an article fails one or two criteria, you can speedy delete it. If it fails more than two, you should understand that whoever created the article clearly does not understand how Wikipedia works, and may remove your speedy deletion tag. ”

A speedy deletion tag is not supposed to be removed, but it happens, and if you aren't watching or do a large number of speedy deletions, you may never notice. While there are people who watch all changes to Wikipedia in real time, they may not catch it either.

In any event, if you find an article that fails the criteria, tag it appropriately. If the tag stays, then it will get deleted in short order by an administrator. If it gets removed, you should leave a warning on the talk page of the user who did so asking him for an explanation. If you don't get one, proceed to step three.

What to do if it doesn't fail any speedy criteria but you can't source it? Proceed to step three.

[edit] Step Three: Examine the article for formal deletion criteria

Assuming that the article isn't a speedy candidate or you don't feel like mucking with speedy deletion with a stubborn author who keeps removing the tag or who disagrees it meets a CSD criterion, you can take the article to Articles for Deletion. But prior to doing that, make very sure you can find a reason why the article should be deleted. The reason must be based on policy!

Cruft is not a policy, nor is "I don't like it". Policy is a requirement to put an article up for deletion. If the article is unsourced, but verifiable and doesn't violate any other policies, you cannot delete it. However, if an article contains original research, or cannot be verified, or lacks notability under a guideline, or is a point-of-view article, or any of the other deletion criteria, then you can list it at articles for deletion.

Again, always review what you submit before submitting it. A person who nominates a lot of articles for deletion that don't actually fail policy may be considered disruptive or even a troll. If you can find reasons to delete, list it for deletion and proceed to step four.

Comment - Some examples of formal deletion criteria can be found in the following sections of WP:DELETE:

Problem articles where deletion may be needed
Problem articles where deletion may not be needed

Quack 688 02:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Step Four: Submitting to Articles for Deletion

Once you've listed the article on "Articles for Deletion", other Wikipedians will discuss and present their viewpoints. After several days, an administrator will review the arguments made and determine if the article should be kept or deleted. It is considered bad form to nominate an article for deletion multiple times within a short span of time, particularly if there was not a close decision.

Whether an article is kept or deleted, you should examine the logic and the reasoning given by the closing administrator. Most of the time, the admin makes the correct decision. However, occasionally, the admins get things wrong. An admin who simply doesn't like an article might delete it against consensus. Alternatively, an admin with a personal interest in an article might keep it, even if valid policy reasons have been given for its deletion.

IF and ONLY IF you can find SPECIFIC REASONS why you are SURE an admin closed a deletion discussion the wrong way, should you take take it to Deletion Review. Do NOT take things to deletion review just because you don't like the outcome, particularly if you feel the article should have been deleted.

[edit] Step Five: Review the article at Deletion Review if needed

Listing an article at deletion review is the last court of appeals for an article. It is NOT a second vote for deletion, but is only to specifically review the circumstances that led to the closure of an deletion discussion. You should only make arguments towards that end. For example: An admin closes a discussion with 10 delete votes based on policy, and two keep votes with no policy or rationale for keep given, as a keep. Obviously the admin's closing was flawed, so you can take it to Deletion Review. However, if the article was kept by every other participant than you, and you feel upset, you cannot take it to Deletion Review.

Now it's on to the deletion procedures themselves...

[edit] The four deletion processes

Before we cover what you can and should do, let's cover what you should not even attempt to do. You do not delete an article directly. Do not blank a page to delete an article (that's considered vandalism and can get you in trouble). The physical removal of articles from Wikipedia is handled by its system administrators, usually after they are nominated for deletion, and then based specifically on the outcome of the corresponding deletion discussions called Articles for deletion. Sysadmins are entrusted to enforce and abide by Wikipedia policy, and therefore even they cannot go around deleting anything they want. Those who do don't remain administrators for long.

In addition to the above safeguard, there are very strict deletion criteria, which users engaged in deletion discussions are required to consider. Wikipedians do not allow most pages to be deleted unless those pages violate a policy or fail to meet notability standards. In many cases, an article can be improved by rewriting part of it, by adding source references, or by other corrective measures, thereby making deletion unnecessary.

That being said, there are four deletion processes:

  1. Speedy deletion is for things that blatantly fail Wikipedia's policies of what should be included in the encyclopedia. Pages that attack people or are nothing more than vandalism, spam, or blatant copyright violations are subject to speedy deletion. For example, a page which was created for the sole purpose of displaying the message "Charlie Hackmaster is a %#&*head" can be speedied.
  2. Proposed deletion is for when an article fails a criterion, but not one that allows for speedy deletion. Experienced Wikipedia users call this prodding an article, because the template used in this procedure is called prod. A deletion proposal should present an uncontroversial reason, that no one would oppose. Anyone can contest such a deletion proposal if they think the article should be kept and can cancel the proposal (by removing it). If the proposal is cancelled without the problem being fixed, the issue may proceed to a deletion nomination (see below).
  3. Deletion debates, take place when articles are nominated for deletion, and are where users examine such articles and try to come to an agreement on whether or not they should be deleted. While this agreement consensus is indicated by votes of keep or delete, the administrator who closes a discussion will interpret the votes based on the comments each user made in the debate, and according to Wikipedia policy (closing admins can override consensus when such consensus violates policy). Deletion debates can delete anything, but you will be discussing it with other people, so be polite. Each page type has its own deletion debate section on Wikipedia, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. These debates are collectively called XfD by experienced Wikipedians, because the shortcuts are WP:AfD, WP:CfD, WP:IfD, WP:MfD, WP:RfD, WP:SfD, and WP:TfD (for articles, categories, images, miscellany, redirects, stub types, and templates, respectively), and each page includes instructions on how to nominate a page of that type for deletion.
  4. Admin discretion - Finally, admins can delete things unilaterally, if they are harmful to the Wikimedia Foundation. Admins are under a lot of scrutiny, so the reasons for such a deletion must be blatantly obvious and uncontroversial.

Each of these processes is dealt with in more detail below:

[edit] Speedy Deletion

As mentioned above, the "Speedy deletion" policy is a way to delete some very limited types of articles or other pages "on sight" without further debate, as in the cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism. Speedy deletion is usually the first step in the process of deletion analysis.

[edit] What are the Speedy Deletion Criteria

These are the most common criteria you will use. See the pages on criteria for speedy deletion for the full list.

Code Description Explanation
G1 Patent Nonsense Gibberish. Ex: "23983292dkkjkd lollll!!!" Nonsense is NOT bad spelling or punctuation.
G2 Test Pages Pages conducted as experiment. Ex: "Can I make a page?" Note that a page that is an outline is NOT a test.
G3 Pure Vandalism Pages that are nothing but vandalism. Ex: a copy of penis, with stupid jokes. But check the history FIRST to make sure the page wasn't vandalized and actually has good content. If it does, simply revert the vandalism.
G4 Already Deleted Material The recreation of stuff that was deleted using an AfD process.
G5 Banned User Any page created by a banned user should be deleted. Make sure you check the block log to ensure the person really is indefinitely banned, and the user was banned when creating the page.
G10 Attack Pages Page created for no other reason than to attack someone. Ex: "Bob is a cow!" Be very careful with this code, as it is sometimes misused.
G11 Blatant Advertising Spam. Ex: "Buy WhiteRite today, for cleany shiny teeth!" The advertising must be BLATANT -- a link to a website is not advertising ... unless it's the entire article (in which case you can just use A3).
G12 Copyright Infringement For clearcut cases of copyright infringment. Ex: exact copy of a copyrighted website, down to spelling errors.
A1 No context Ridiculously short articles with no context. Ex: "Bob is a famous doctor." Try to get an idea of notability before applying this tag.
A3 No content Articles which don't contain any content at all, but just the title, maintenance tags, external links, etc.
A7 Non-notability Unremarkable people, companies, groups, companies, and websites. Ex: "Weebritz is a web forum with 10 members" Like above, try to see if you can find notability before applying the deletion tag.

Ensure you use the right reason. Ensure, doubly so, that your reasoning is both logical and factual. Do not simply throw a tag on an article. Take some time, at least five minutes, to research it properly.

[edit] How exactly do I list an article for Speedy Deletion?

Once you are assured that the article is indeed a Speedy Deletion candidate, you follow a two-step process.

  • Step One: Place the appropiate template on the page of the article, at the very top of the page. A list of the templates can be useful in identifing the proper one to use.
  • Step Two: Place a notification on the author's talk page. There will often be an example of what code to use at the bottom of the template you apply; for instance, you can type {{nn-warn|name of article}} ~~~~ when warning a user about an article that you've nominated for an A7 speedy deletion. This allows the person to fix the article if needed, by using a {{hangon}} tag.

[edit] Tips on Speedy Deletion
  1. If the article is clearly garbage, make very sure you review the entire history. Some things may look like crap but have been vandalized. You should do this with all deletions, but it's particularly important in speedy deletion.
  2. Speedy deletion can work quickly, but remember that the speedy tag can be removed by the author. It's generally not worth it to make a huge edit war over this, just take it to AfD instead if it happens.
  3. If someone uses a hangon tag, it's generally a good idea to be helpful in trying to fix the article. Some articles are created as frameworks and don't immediately show notability.
  4. ALWAYS make sure you leave the user notice when you speedy delete. Since speedy deletion can happen quickly, not doing so leaves you open to charges that you are not following process correctly.

[edit] Proposed Deletion

Proposed Deletion is pretty simple, and straightforward. If an article meets the standard (not speedy) criteria for deletion, such as violations of unreliable sources, verifiability, original research, and the like. It should only be used when things are uncontroversial. In practice, that's pretty rare.

To prod an article, simply place a prod tag on the article page like this: {{subst:prod|reason goes here}}. If the prod is removed, take the page to AfD if you think it still violates policy.

[edit] Tips for Proposed Deletion
  1. Prods are best used on articles that haven't been edited in several months, have a single editor, and appear inactive. An active article that is inappropiate for Wikipedia should be taken to AfD instead, since a prod can be undone legally by removing the tag.
  2. Prods are usually deleted with some rapidity, but there can be a backlog. Sometimes, the deleting admin will remove your prod if he or she feels it doesn't apply.

[edit] Deletion debates

Deletion discussions
Deletion today

Deletion yesterday

Articles (by category)

Templates

Images & media

Categories (active)

User categories

Stub types

Redirects

Miscellany

Deletion review
Deletion policy
Process - log - tools

Guide - Admin guide

The main way to delete an article is to use the Articles for Deletion page. The AfD page has a very good explanation of how to list an article for deletion so I won't repeat it here. Instead, I'll make a few observations:

  1. This is not a vote: When articles go up for deletion, users examine the article and the deletion argument and make suggestions that resemble a vote, such as "keep" or "delete". However, the purpose of XfD is to decide whether an article fails a policy. Even if 40 people vote to delete, if they don't have a reason to do so, the article will be kept. -
  2. A good vote has a policy attached: The best votes, for keep or delete, include the proper policy to back that vote up. Don't just say "per nom", come up with your own reason.
  3. Don't vote keep because you like it.: The idea of voting is bad, but voting based on your personal stake or impression of the article is worse....
  4. Don't vote delete because you hate it: This is even worse than voting keep without a good reason. If you want something deleted, find a policy that supports your view. Don't just spam (delete, stupid author) or whatever.
  5. Civility is paramount: Being rude only undercuts your argument, and makes it less likely people will view your AfD in the impartial atmosphere you need.

[edit] Administrative Deletion

In very rare cases the administration of the Wikimedia Foundation will step in to resolve a dispute, such as when the bureaucracy of Wikipedia is being abused, or a conflict spirals out of control and is wasting an inordinate amount of human resources. Such was the case with the deletion debates concerning Brian Peppers, in which Jimbo Wales finally stepped-in and personally deleted and temporarily "salted" the article until February 21, 2007.

[edit] How do I get an article back?

In the unhappy event you are the author or significant contributor to an article that has been deleted at AfD, you may have two options open. If the article was speedily deleted as nonsense, an attack page, a copyright violation, or if it was deleted by adminstrative oversight, then you are better off leaving it deleted. Recreations of such content can be construed as trolling.

However, if you feel you can work on the article enough to fix it, or that the deletion process was unfair to the article, you have two choices.

[edit] Deletion Review

Deletion Review is the high court of appeals for deletion cases. If you believe that an article was improperly deleted because proper procedure wasn't followed or some policy was broken or ignored, then you may submit the article for Deletion Review. Deletion Review is not another deletion debate. Its purpose is to determine if an AfD discussion adhered to policy, including the way it was interpreted and closed. If your article was listed at AfD and the discussion was closed as delete after 54 minutes, then you have a case. If your article was put up at AfD, ran for 5 days, and everyone but you voted to delete it, then you most likely do not have a case. Some people frown very strongly on spurious submissions to Deletion Review, so be sure you have a valid argument.

[edit] Userfication (aka: "Content review")

If a deleted article is not inflammatory or otherwise disruptive, and you want to work on it in your user space, you can ask an admin to give you a copy to put in your user space. Or you could post your request at WP:DRV#Content review. Instructions for userfication are also included there.

In your userspace, such articles are usually immune to XfD attempts as long as you are working on it to make it fit wikipolicy. Do NOT link to it outside of your user space, or attempt to get things to link to it. Don't game the system.

Once the article has been brought up to standard, move it to article space, and then request that the history of the original page be restored, at WP:DRV#History only undeletion. This is so that all authors of the article are credited (as per Wikipedia's content license requirements), and for reference and communication purposes (so the previous editors can be looked up and contacted if the need ever arises, etc.).

[edit] Article re-creation

There is no policy against article re-creation, provided you act in good faith and did your best to adhere to Wikipedia policy. But in the case of a topic which has been repeatedly voted down, it may be "salted" (replaced by a protected notice page) to prevent re-creation. If the topic becomes eligible (like a previously obscure web site which has suddenly garnered a lot of popularity and press), then you may make a request for page unprotection so that you can re-create the page. (Requests for unprotection are handled on the same page as requests for page protection).

If the topic of an article is deemed inappropriate (due to lack of notability, for instance), then the article should not be re-created (until the notability of the topic itself changes).

For example, an article is written about a virtually unknown author who wrote a single book which sold no more than 500 copies which received no coverage in the mainstream or even field-specific press. According to Wikipedia policy, the author is non notable and should not be afforded an article. Therefore the article gets nominated for deletion and during the debate the "delete" votes prevail. But a few weeks later, the author appears on Oprah and the book sells a million copies. The topic now qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia and the article can be re-created.

If an article is nominated for deletion because the quality of its contents are not up to par (such as lacks references and depth), you can save a copy to your user space before the article is deleted. Once you have fixed the article and it no longer violates Wikipedia policy, it can be moved back to article space. Be sure to explain on its talk page how the article no longer violates policy, and how it has been improved.

Tip: If you believe an article (which you find useful) is in danger of getting deleted, you can save a copy of the article in your user space or off-line on your hard disk.

Tip: To keep your user space from getting cluttered, you can save articles vertically in a "stack" by using a single page in your user space to store them. Each time you wish to add an article to the stack, blank the page, cut and paste the new article to the page, and save. The previous article is preserved in the page's history. Be sure to indicate the name of each article in its edit summary, to enable you to find it later.

--The Transhumanist 14:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are the guidelines in deleting things?

Here are some relevant guideline shortcut pages.

WP:NOT WP:OR WP:V WP:N WP:RS WP:MUSIC WP:BIO WP:CORP WP:SCHOOL WP:DEL WP:OFFICE WP:SPAM

Here are some quick guidelines:

[edit] Copyright

  • If it violates copyright in any way, it has to go.
  • If ALL the pages in the history are copyvios, place a copyvio deletion tag on it ({{db-copyvio}}).
  • Otherwise, revert back to the first page that doesn't contain the copyvio.

[edit] Verifiablity

  • Check the verifiability of the article yourself.
  • Make sure you do at least a quick search for sources.
  • Articles without any sources that make large claims are almost always deletion worthy.

[edit] Notability

  • Be aware of sub-types of notability, such as WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and WP:LOCAL.
  • Notability is under a lot of changes recently, so review WP:N when you can.
  • Subjects that aren't notable generally get deleted, but most things that fail notability tend to fail verifiability as well.

[edit] Encyclopedic

  • Review WP:NOT for a good idea of what not to make into the subject of an article.
  • Instead of deletion, encourge transwiking topics to other wikis like Wikitionary or Wikibooks.
  • Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Offensive content can still be encylopedic.

[edit] Purpose

  • Attack pages must go, post haste.
  • Inaccurate and unsourced biographies of living people MUST go.
  • Any article that doesn't SEEM to openly violate polcies but reads like an ad should be closely reviewed.

[edit] Deletionism & Inclusionism

Deletionism and Inclusionism, while most often represented as black and white opposites which completely oppose each other, are really two ends of a continuum. Wikipedians' inclusion standards all lie somewhere along the line between "include everything" and "delete everything"; inclusionism and deletionism are shorthand terms which describe the small number of Wikipedians whose views sit at the lowest and highest ends of this continuum.

Inclusionism holds that articles that do not violate instant deletion issues (such as blatant copyright violations or attack pages) should not be deleted if there is a way for them to be expanded. They tend to point more towards expansion of stubs, finding sources for articles without sources, and editing to make most articles suitable for Wikipedia. Or to simply leave the article in place so that others can come along and improve it. However, a common criticism of Inclusionists is that they advocate cleanup and sourcing but rarely perform such acts themselves, which only leads to ever-increasing backlogs of unsourced articles. Inclusionists may point out that Wikipedia is by default unsourced, and that WP:VER isn't applied consistently - if it was, then most of Wikipedia would be up for deletion. Inclusionists bitterly dislike the idea of notability, stating that it is being used as a club to prevent anything non-mainstream from being included in Wikipedia. They may argue that if a subject or field is mainstream enough to have an article on Wikipedia, then its subtopics are eligible for inclusion as well.

Deletionism holds that articles that do not meet the basic policies of Wikipedia and cannot be immediately fixed with a minimum of effort should be deleted. Deletionists tend to rely on the direct and literal reading of particular policy and dislike the idea of putting things such as sourcing articles or removing original research off, since it usually never gets done. However, deletionism is under increasing criticism due to the fact that many deletionists spend more time deleting things than creating articles, and that many deletions are either railroads of articles that could be expanded or rely on increasingly specific deletion criteria that continue to tighten. Deletionists bitterly dislike the principle of rules like WP:IAR and statements that Wikipedia is not Paper due to the fact that they feel such are allowing cruft (content of importance only to a small group of enthusiastic fans) into an otherwise factual wikipedia.

It is worth noting that there are roughly 400 to 500 inclusionist editors, and perhaps a total of 200 deletionists. This is out of over 3,000,000 users. Even assuming that 75% of the userbase is nothing more than sockpuppets or onetime users, the combined inclusionists and deletionists make up less than 0.002% of total users. Yet they account for at least 55% of all XfD activitity. This means that, while factionalism is seen as bad on Wikipedia, both Inclusionists and Deletionists are seen as disruptive at times. It is always best to judge each article up for deletion on its own merits and not to align yourself with any faction.

Comment I think there are various problems with this section; the criticisms of both inclusionists and deletionists are essentially stupid ones (although they are indeed common ones), and the statistics as to the number of both inclusionists and deletionists are not remotely accurate. Every Wikipedia editor falls somewhere along the Inclusionist-Deletionist continuum, even if many don't know the terms, we all have our own attitudes and beliefs as to what our policies should be and what should or shouldn't belong. And, from what I've observed in the WP:IAR talk page, it is the inclusionists, in fact, who dislike IAR, at least at the moment. --Xyzzyplugh 00:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other considerations

  • Always remember that someone might have put a lot of hard work into an article, even if it doesn't fit Wikipedia's policies. Being uncivil and derogatory usually generates more ill will than such comments are worth, so try to avoid it.
  • Never, ever vote "per nom". Examine the article when voting for deletion, and make your OWN choices.
  • If an article violates a policy and you're voting in AfD, don't just say "fails WP:POLICY", but explain how it fails it. If it fails WP:RS, then say "All the sources are from fansites and there is no independent media coverage, and some sources are just blogs."
  • If you vote to "keep and cleanup", be prepared to clean up. I, for one, keep a close eye on articles where this seems to be the consensus, and I will take it back to AfD after a month or so if no one bothers to touch the article in that time. To vote for keep and cleanup and then not clean it up is just lying.
  • Don't try to solicit votes to keep or delete an article. It's tacky, and it's a violation of policy.
Comment - I disagree that one shouldn't post brief "delete per nom" or "delete per policy" votes. Frequently deletion is the obvious choice, and the nominator has already thoroughly explained why. However, AfD debates frequently end up getting relisted because they didn't get enough responses, or consensus wasn't reached. If only one person votes Delete along with the nominator, article may get relisted, so even one additional "delete per nom" can save the trouble of relisting. In addition, if there are only two delete votes, and someone comes along and just types "keep" with no reasoning, article could get relisted. "Delete per nom", while being a bit lazy, can be useful. --Xyzzyplugh 23:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

Hey, here's a deletion topic we missed...

Sometimes a bad page is so bad that it is actually good, er, funny. And even though you know and agree that it should be deleted, it feels like a shame to get rid of it. Well, Wikipedia has a place for such pages, called Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. You'll be surprised what some people have posted as articles on Wikipedia. So the next time you want to relax and need a good laugh, check it out.

  The Transhumanist   

[edit] The profanity/sexual jargon deletion war

There seems to be a constant battle on Wikipedia between those who wish to create lists and glossaries of profanity and sexual slang words (and neologisms) and those who enforce policy. Such lists violate WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even though there is an exception for glossaries in the policy, that exception pertains to glossaries of technical or specialized terms needed to support Wikipedia subjects and articles. The argument that glossaries of sexual slang are needed for article support generally falls on deaf ears (blind eyes?), and such pages are axed again and again. Sometimes the battles are lengthy and arduous - the participants may fight over every single edit (between AfDs) - and though it may take the enforcers 2 or 3 AfDs to finally get rid of a list, in the long-term they generally prevail.

Currently, the following sexual jargon pages (or pages which include sexual jargon) still exist on Wikipedia, but for how long?

  • List of Japanese sex terms - it has undergone (and survived) 2 AfDs so far.
  • Mandarin slang - it has survived at least one AfD.
  • Singapore sexual slang terminology - it has survived 1 AfD so far.

All of the English lists that I know of are gone. Though lists (or additional words) appear in related articles from time to time, but are generally removed (unless they are links to actual articles).

Why am I mentioning all of this? Because it is deletion-relevant and because...

What the builders and supporters of such lists often don't realize, at least with the English word lists, is that they are reinventing the wheel and are therefore wasting their time. Almost every conceivable sexual slang word known to Man has already been posted to Wikipedia (at least in English), and deleted, and yet... they are still here for kicks and grins. They're in Wikipedia's alternative deletion graveyard mentioned above. And these pages are open for adding additional terms. Each such collection lasted on Wikipedia for years before finally being "deleted". So instead of wasting your time trying to add similar (English) terms or lists to Wikipedia's article space, why not just expand the lists that already exist? They are a lot more fun to "work" on, because there's a lot more to work with because they aren't censored at all. Here they are:

  • Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Body Parts Slang
  • Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Sexual Slang
  • Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Toilet Slang

And just when you thought we had had covered everything on deletion. Well, we haven't. There are more deletion-related links provided below.

  The Transhumanist   

[edit] Where can I learn more?

  • WP:DRV - deletion review: instructions and proposal department
  • WP:DRV#Content review - covers userfication, and is a request department for same
  • WP:DEL covers deletion policies.
  • WP:V covers verifiability.
  • WP:RS covers what is a reliable source.
  • WP:AFD covers the criteria for deletion.
  • WP:OR goes over original research.
  • WP:NOT is a good start on finding inappropriate article types.
  • WP:N, and its subsets WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, etc, are good for determining notability. Be aware that WP:N was recently changed.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Deletion of good articles

(Question copied here from The Transhumanist's user page, since it is relevant to this topic):

I have seen you around here on Wikipedia and have noted that you are among the more intelligent of Wikipedians (your work with virtual classroooms is outstanding). I've had this issue bugging me for a while but I wasn't sure who I could talk to about it. After reading your profile, I think you might know how to deal with this issue.

Recently, it seems that many high-quality articles are up for deletion quite often. Yes, there are the dozens upon dozens that are blatant advertising or spam, but now a large number a day seem to be up for deletion. I'm not sure what I (or anyone) can do about this.

Lost and confused, S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's censorship
It comes in two basic forms on Wikipedia...
The most prevalent form of censorship on Wikipedia currently is deletionism, which is the Wikiphilosophy that holds that if an article isn't complete (or good) enough, it isn't ready to be displayed on Wikipedia. In the face of the vast number of stub articles on Wikipedia, and the fact that many of our volunteers make small contributions at a time, this approach is rather absurd. One argument for deletionism is that Wikipedia is mirrored all over the internet, such as on http://answers.com, and therefore it should hold to professional publishing standards and only provide finished (polished) product.
One counter argument is that Wikipedia is a work in progress being constructed by volunteers (that is, it relies entirely on volunteers to build it), therefore it should take advantage of any work (contributions) which volunteers make, regardless of how small. When additions are removed, they aren't there for others to work on and build upon (or for others to read!), so in this sense, it's taking a step backwards; but more significantly, it harms Wikipedia by disallowing collaboration.
Collaboration on Wikipedia for the most part consists of multiple users contributing to an article, but this becomes difficult if articles are removed for insufficient content - you can't build upon what isn't there! The easiest way for editors to find each other to collaborate is by going to the article they are interested in. Many may not know about draft hosting nor know how to find a draft hosted in someone's userspace. Deletionism unbuilds Wikipedia. It's like there's an unwritten rule that if you don't give a certain amount of material at one time (a whole article), you can't give at all.
Noteworthiness is another major issue for deletionists, in which they favor the mainstream. So if an article isn't noteworthy in the general sense even though it may be noteworthy in the field to which it pertains, it may have some trouble getting past the deletionists. Fortunately, the deletionists are opposed by the inclusionists and incrementalists... and by the vast number of contributors to Wikipedia - currently, there are just too many people adding material to Wikipedia for the deletionists to keep up with. See meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, meta:Deletionism and meta:Inclusionism.
The second and more insidious form of censorship on Wikipedia is information suppression. This is when users delete articles they don't agree with or because the articles don't support their agenda. It is akin to book banning (and burning). It's harder to spot, because the censors don't cite the real reasons why they are trying to delete the articles. From what I have observed, it appears that the policy used the most as the basis for such deletions is Wikipedia:Verify. Since citing sources is policy (mandatory), and because most of Wikipedia doesn't cite sources (and is therefore in violation of policy by default), WP:VER is the most readily available weapon for censors. The only effective defense against this argument for deletion is to provide references (that is, actually do the research, find, and post the references in the article). See: Wikipedia:Censorship and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored.
What's the solution? The solution is: Vigilance...
Deletionism is easy to deal with. The deletionists love Wikipedia every bit as much as the rest of us. They're not against additions to Wikipedia per se, just additions that aren't up to their standards. The solution for articles which aren't complete enough is to complete them. The solution for non-noteworthy articles is to provide references of their noteworthiness; failing that, save them off-line or in your userspace until they become noteworthy.
Information suppression is harder to deal with. Censorship isn't allowed on Wikipedia, so if someone really is purging material from Wikipedia due to some bias or special interest, then an RFC can be started once enough evidence of policy violation is gathered concerning his or her behavior. But that is a lengthy process. In the meantime, more damage is being done, and has to be opposed directly. The only way to solve the problem of censorship is to fight it at every level...
In the deletion debates, you've got to address whatever the reasons given for deletion are and fix the article so that they no longer apply. Once done, make sure you place a note at the top of the deletion debate for the closing admin pointing this out. Otherwise, the admin might just count the votes and not even check the article. If everyone's concerns are met, then the consensus is to keep.
Beyond the debates, articles which aren't "salted" (protected) can be re-created (that is, rewritten) from scratch.
Material may be relevant in other articles, so the parts that are can be included in those articles. But to re-use information in such a way, it is of paramount importance TO SAVE A COPY OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE IT IS DELETED.
Articles can also be revived, fixed, and submitted to Wikipedia:Deletion review. In support of this effort, you can save the original article off-line, or in your userspace. If you don't make it in time, don't panic -- you can request that an admin make a copy of the article to your userspace for draft purposes (admins have access to Wikipedia's deleted articles). This can be a pain, so it's best to make a copy beforehand. Once the article has been approved for reinsertion into the encyclopedia, contact an admin to restore the original article along with its complete history. To adhere to the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, the license under which Wikipedia content is created, each page in Wikipedia must be attributed to its authors (and they, along with their contributions, are all recorded in a page's history). To keep a page's history intact you've got to get the original back out of the deletion graveyard, and that's done through Deletion Review. This shouldn't be a problem if you've addressed all the objections posed in the page's deletion debate, and fixed each problem.
At the risk of sounding redundant, the best defense against censorship/deletion is to save a copy. So if there is an article you are worried about, save a copy of it right away. If you put it off too long, you may be caught off-guard by a red-link. If you do come across a red-link for which you know there was a good article there before, look up its deletion debate to see if you can do anything about it. If fixable, edit the article, and submit it to Deletion review.
While there may be nothing you can do to keep censors off of Wikipedia, it is your duty as a Wikipedian to fight censorship wherever you find it on Wikipedia. The only way to beat censorship is to fight it, and that means get the word out. Be ready to repost the information in some form somewhere. Also don't let censors operate in a vacuum. Bring their activities, or the material in question, to the attention of others. There are forums all over Wikipedia for this. See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, and Wikipedia:Third opinion.
I hope this helps. Go get 'em!
Sincerely,   The Transhumanist   05:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bone to pick with deletionists

(copied to here from user pages, by --The Transhumanist)...

Hey Pascal,

For some reason, many deletionists have really be egging me lately. You are one of the few self-proclaimed deletionists who goes out of his way to make Wikipedia a better place and you don't seem to fit the deletionist stereotype, as I've seen you try to save several articles.

Anyway, after spending a few months here on Wikipedia and many hours in WP:XFD, I've come to think that many deletionists are just too lazy to contribute by adding new information. I don't know whether this opinion is misguided or not (and if I ever ran for RFA, I'm sure this will come back to bite me), but it seems that many of those who claim they are deletionists would rather just stay in WP:AFD and !vote "delete" down much of the list instead of adding new information to Wikipedia. To mask their laziness, they use the guise of the Wiki-philosophy Deletionism. Why improve an article when you can point out its faults and then delete it?

Confused and in need of advice,

S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion and deletionists and some thoughts...
Hello Sharkface. I think you first have to assume that everybody involved around AfD and other Wikiplaces believes that they are working for the good of the project. Of course there's enough vagueness in the whole concept of Wikipedia that it's just normal to find that people are sometimes pulling in different directions. Sometimes (actually oftentimes) you get the feeling that the community's decision is mistaken but overall anyone has to admit that the whole thing is fairly successful.
A while back, I spent quite a bit of energy arguing for the deletion of Category:Terrorists. As it turns out, the category was kept and I still believe this to be a mistake (look at the debate if you want to know why, but that's not really relevant here) and it left me with the sad feeling that too many editors were not taking enough time to think things through. But I accept the consensus not because I believe that it always ends up being the best choice for the encyclopedia but because it allows the project as a whole to run smoothly. The only thing I can do when I find I'm in disagreement with the majority is to make my point as clearly as I can and hope that this will sway opinion. If it doesn't happen, well so be it, I move on and continue to do my bit to help
A similar situation arose around the time I was up for RfA: I argued for keeping List of hookers with hearts of gold and as you may remember this had people screaming bloody murder and frankly people that argued that I was bringing up ILIKEIT arguments were either acting in bad faith or had not read that debate. This is how Wikipedia works: you make your point, you respect others' opinions and when all is said and done you go with the flow, even when you feel the decision is ill-advised.
Deletionists, like me, tend to view deletion as something less than catastrophic and are worried that articles on extremely fringe topics, almanach-like trivia, vanity or fan-boyish biographies, etc, end up costing Wikipedia a considerable amount of editing time and are skewing its reputation. Consequently, they end up voting for deletion in a lot of AfD debates. Save for the occasional wacko, they don't do so out of lazyness: they believe that some articles are not worth saving. I take it you disagree with that position and that's fine with me. Just remember that people on the other side of the fence also believe they're defending Wikipedia's best interests. When you feel that deletion of a specific article is particularly problematic, take the time to argue your point, take the time to expand the article and demonstrate its worth, take the time, if need be, to ask deletion supporters to expand their arguments. If that does not work, then just accept that you disagree with the majority and work on something else. Surely, you won't lose much sleep if Mongolian Barbecue Great Place to Party is deleted but even in cases that you feel more strongly about, don't be bitter when you see the decision not going your way.
Well, ok that was a bit of a longish reply, sorry... Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Sharkface, that's an excellent way to insult a lot of people. I happen to be a very strong deletionist, yet I have created 20 + sourced, complete articles; massively contributed to at least 20 more; hundreds of minor contributions; started a wikiproject to review deletions, and various other activies. Oh, and I wrote this article on deletion. Yeah, I'm 'lazy.
If anything, I'd say more often than not it's inclusionists who fit your definition of lazy. They have no problems with adding "information" to the Wiki, but they don't think it's important that this information be sourced, verifiable, or that it's even important to anyone. Some of them feel that if it's important to anyone it should exist. When asked to source, they don't. When they vote to keep and cleanup an article, they don't. If you call them on it, they tell YOU to do it since it bothers you. And so forth.
Quite frankly, when I hear someone is "frustrated" with "deletionists" I see contributions that are marginably notable, conflicting, or don't have good sources along with editors who seem to think they are the only ones acting in good faith and that anyone who ever votes to delete their article, even if it's completely made up, is evil. So much for assuming good faith.
Contributors like you make me wonder why I even bother with Wikipedia. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Elara, while I admit that the once pseudo-private discussion between me and Pascal (who I have have regard for as a fine editor and consider to be a person who I certainly look up to) isn't really assuming good faith on the part of "deletionists", I'd like to note that you're not assuming that I have good faith. My apologies if my question to Pascal offended you. Admittedly, I was a bit tired that day after browsing through WP:AFD (although I know that is no excuse for the incivility of my question) and I certainly didn't mean that question to Pascal to be as inflamitory as you made it out to be. Honestly, I was just having a bad day and I needed some advice. I did not expect the conversation to be taken here (although I guess I must assume that in the future all my work will be under the microscope, more so than now). If anything, I would ask that you not reply to my question to Pascal (what I assumed to be a question between fellow editors) and instead reply to my question to The Transhumanist, found in the discussion above this one. I was much more civil in asking that question and less inflamitory. Again, I am sorry if I offended you and I hope to be more civil in the future. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry about that. You've been marked for deletion. Now 200 deletionists will be rabidly hunting you! My fault. But you're not alone, man. I've had the same impression of AfD'ers from time to time. It can be rather frustrating when you are trying to save a savable article and nobody will lift a finger to help (and in one sense all typing is is lifting, and dropping, fingers). And you watch helplessly while everyone there simply votes to kill the article. It's easy to pronounce sentence on something... much harder to actually work on it -- and that goes for deletionists and inclusionists both. But that's the way Wikipedia is set up. Just be glad that only a select and trusted few have the ability to remove articles from Wikipedia. Imagine what it would be like if we didn't have the deletion debates. Anarchy. Wikipedia would be like an unguarded sandcastle on the beach.

On the bright side, the way Wikipedia is set up is rather smart (and cool)... because there is no policy that an article can't be re-created. So, if an article is deleted for lack-of-quality or incompleteness reasons, you can rewrite or revise the article and repost it. As long as you have addressed (and fixed) all of the concerns in relevant AfDs, there shouldn't be a problem with the re-created page. Unless of course the article is on a topic that is deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia (where the subject matter itself violates policy, like an article on a non-notable author), then you really shouldn't be trying to re-create such a page.

I believe the most painful deletion experience is when a page you've written (or worked on a lot), or one that you really like, gets axed without your knowledge, and you discover it only when you try to go there and it just ain't there anymore. For newcomers that can be especially traumatic, since they don't know that they may be able to resurrect the page, first by looking up the deletion debate to see why it was deleted and whether or not it is fixable, second by requesting of an admin that he or she copy it (from the deletion graveyard) to their user page for repair/editing, and third by fixing it.

Keep in mind that mirrors of Wikipedia don't get updated right away, so that a deleted article may still be displayed on other websites on the internet for days or even a week or more after it has disappeared from Wikipedia. So you can save a copy for yourself from a mirror, or even use it as the basis for a new draft (as long as you follow policy -- blatantly reposting policy-violating content can get you in trouble). One such mirror is http://answers.com. You can use google to find others (by doing a search using the article's name), or wade through Wikipedia's list of mirrors. If you have any doubts about whether you can repost a fixed page, submit a proposal to Wikipedia:Deletion review including a link to the fixed page (in your userspace).

Deletion isn't quite as tragic as it first appears to be. So don't panic, and don't let it get you down. And remember, when in doubt, ask an admin, or post your question on one of Wikipedia's help forums (like WP:HD). I hope these tips help.   The Transhumanist    12:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teacher-Student Advice - Deletion "Cliffsnotes"

Good evening (GMT time); I was wondering if there is a policy and guideline resource you actively refer to when XfDing, or if you reccommend any sure-fast resources that can be used to justify your opinion at a XfD?

Kind regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion-related motives are closely associated with one's Wikiphilosophy. I'm an incrementalist, for instance. So many of my arguments come from that philosophy.
The rest of the arguments pertain to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Those two links have brief summaries of each one (and serve as memory boosters). For a firm grounding in the reasons for deletion, you should be familiar with all the policies and guidelines in the deletion and content sections of those two pages.
I hope that helps. The Transhumanist   06:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)