Wikipedia:Deletion process - Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion process - Wikipedia
Jump to content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For instructions on nominating a page for deletion, please refer to the
deletion policy
or the
Guide to deletion
This page documents an English Wikipedia
deletion guideline
Editors should generally follow it, though
exceptions
may apply.
Substantive
edits to this page
should reflect consensus
Shortcut
WP:DELPRO
WP:DELPRO
Deletion discussions
Deletion today
Undeletion
Deletion review
Deletion log
Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
Today
All
sorted
Closing
Log
Templates
Today
All
Closing
Holding
Log
Files
Today
All
Closing
Log
Categories
Today
All
category
Closing
Log
Speedy
Working
manual
large
Redirects
Today
All
Closing
Log
Miscellany
Today
All
Closing
Log
Speedy deletion
Candidates
Proposed deletion
All
sorted
BLPs
Policy
Process
Guide
images
Administrator guidelines
The
deletion process
encompasses the
processes
involved in implementing and recording the community's decisions to
delete
or keep
articles
media
, and other pages.
Normally, a
deletion discussion
must be held to form a
consensus
to delete a page. In general, administrators are responsible for closing these discussions, though non-administrators in good standing
may
close them
under specific conditions. However, editors may
propose
the deletion of a page if they believe that it would be an uncontroversial candidate for deletion. In some circumstances, a page may be
speedily deleted
if it meets
strict criteria
set by consensus.
Note that
Office actions
and declarations from the
Wikimedia Foundation Board
or the
system administrators
, particularly concerning copyright issues, legal issues, or server load, take priority over community consensus.
Speedy deletion
The
speedy deletion process
applies to pages which meet at least one of the
criteria for speedy deletion
(CSD), which specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media.
Before deleting
a page through the speedy deletion process, please verify that it meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion, check the
page history
to assess whether it would instead be possible to
revert
and salvage a previous version and to determine whether there was a
cut-and-paste move
involved, and search for other information which may impact the need or reason for deletion:
The initial
edit summary
may have information about the source of or reason for the page.
The
talk page
may refer to previous deletion discussions or have ongoing discussion relevant to including the page.
The
page log
may have information about previous deletions that could warrant
SALTing
the page or keeping it.
WhatLinksHere
may show that the page is an oft-referred part of the encyclopedia, or may show other similar pages that warrant deletion. For pages that should not be recreated, incoming links in other pages (except in discussions, archives and tracking pages) should be removed.
If speedy deletion is inappropriate
for a page:
Please remove the speedy deletion tag from the page. Doing so will automatically remove the page from
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
Consider notifying the nominator, using
{{
speedy-decline
}}
or
{{
uw-csd
}}
. (If you're using
CSD Helper
, it will usually notify the nominator for you; it will normally use
its own notification template
.)
When deleting
a page through the speedy deletion process, please specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary, so that it will be recorded into the
deletion log
. Quoting page content in the deletion summary may be helpful, but
must not
be done for
attack content
or
copyrighted text
. In some cases, it would be appropriate to notify the page's creator of the deletion.
If they wish, administrators are free to use the
CSD Helper
user script to help them process editors' speedy deletion nominations. It makes the process smoother and quicker.
Proposed deletion
The
proposed deletion
(PROD) process
applies to articles and files that do not meet the stringent criteria for speedy deletion, but for which it is believed that deletion would be uncontroversial. In this process, an editor places a tag on the article or the file, and any editor can remove the tag to save the page. If the tag remains after seven days, the page can be deleted. For instructions on handling articles and files that have been proposed for deletion, see
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion § Deletion
stronger version of the proposed deletion criteria
(BLPPROD) applies to articles about biographies of living people with no sources. Their deletion can only be contested by adding a source.
Copyright problems
Pages
may be speedily deleted under the G12 criterion
in the case of unambiguous copyright infringement. Pages written extensively by contributors with a history of copyright violation may also be deleted if they qualify for
presumptive deletion
and have been listed at
Wikipedia:Copyright problems
for at least 7 days.
If you delete a file due to copyright or non-free use issues that will not apply after some future date (for example, once the file enters the
public domain
in the United States) and that future date is known, please list the file at
Category:Future copyright expiration
Deletion discussion venues
Shortcut
WP:XFD
WP:XFD
Deletion discussion venues
(or
deletion forums
) are the six places to formally nominate a page not eligible for
speedy deletion
for a discussion.
Deletion venues
Discussion type
Scope
Reasons for deletion
/ Starting a discussion
note 1
Closing instructions
Articles for deletion
(AfD)
Articles
and other pages in the
main namespace
(e.g.
disambiguation pages
), excluding
redirects
note 2
Reasons for deletion
Starting a discussion
Speedy process:
PROD
CSD
Closing instructions
Shortcut
WP:DELPRO#AFD
WP:DELPRO#AFD
Categories for discussion
(CfD)
Categories
and
stub templates
Reasons for deletion
Starting a discussion
Speedy process:
CFDS
CSD
Closing instructions
Shortcut
WP:DELPRO#CFD
WP:DELPRO#CFD
Files for discussion
(FfD)
Files
(most of which are
images
).
Reasons for deletion
Starting a discussion
Speedy process:
PROD
CSD
Closing instructions
Shortcut
WP:DELPRO#FFD
WP:DELPRO#FFD
Miscellany for deletion
(MfD)
All pages, except redirects, in the
Draft
Help
Portal
MediaWiki
Wikipedia
(including
WikiProjects
),
User
TimedText
Event:
Talk
, and the various
talk
namespaces
note 3
Userboxes
(regardless of namespace).
Files in the
File
namespace that have a local description page but no local file.
Reasons for deletion
Starting a discussion
Speedy process
Closing instructions
Shortcut
WP:DELPRO#MFD
WP:DELPRO#MFD
Redirects for discussion
(RfD)
Redirects
, including
soft redirects
, in any
namespace
Reasons for deletion
Starting a discussion
Speedy process
Closing instructions
Shortcut
WP:DELPRO#RFD
WP:DELPRO#RFD
Templates for discussion
(TfD)
Pages in the
Template
and
Module
namespaces, excluding
stub templates
userboxes
, and
redirects
note 3
Reasons for deletion
Starting a discussion
Speedy process
Closing instructions
Shortcut
WP:DELPRO#TFD
WP:DELPRO#TFD
Requested moves
(RM)
While primarily for renaming (moving) pages, may result in deletion (e.g. of a redirect or trivial content at the target page name) or
merger
Use for all rename discussions other than for categories and stub templates (both of which are done at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
).
When to use RM
Starting a discussion
Speedy process
Closing instructions
Shortcut
WP:DELPRO#RM
WP:DELPRO#RM
The process of starting a discussion is greatly aided by the use of
Twinkle
, a software package available to any
autoconfirmed
user.
There is also
proposed deletion
, an alternative system to suggest uncontroversial delayed speedy deletion of pages in the article namespace after a notice has been present for seven days.
Established policies, guidelines, and process pages, along with templates related to them, should not be nominated at deletion venues, because it is outside of their prerogative to modify or revoke policy. Instead, start a discussion on the talk page of the concerned page or at the
village pump
Review venues
Discussion type
Scope
Closing instructions
Deletion review
(DRV)
For appealing the deletion of a page or outcome of a deletion discussion that appears to be against community consensus, if the request is outside of the scope of
requests for undeletion
, and after discussing with the deleting administrator or closer respectively.
Purpose
Starting a discussion
Closing instructions
Shortcut
WP:DELPRO#DRV
WP:DELPRO#DRV
Move review
(MR)
For appealing the closure of a requested move, including one that resulted in a deletion or merger, if it appears to be against consensus or proper closing procedure, and after discussing with the closer.
Purpose
Starting a discussion
Closing instructions
Shortcut
WP:DELPRO#MRV
WP:DELPRO#MRV
Conduct during discussions
Shortcut
WP:XFD#CONDUCT
WP:XFD#CONDUCT
Further information:
WP:Guide to deletion § Discussion
Assume good faith
: Editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least
until strong evidence emerges to the contrary
. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem
without resorting to inappropriate conduct of their own
Wikipedia is not a battleground
: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as
personal attacks
incivility
assumptions of bad faith
harassment
disruptive point-making
, and
gaming the system
, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
Inappropriate
canvassing
and suspected
meatpuppetry
: Evaluate whether it has influenced the outcome of the discussion in a way that compromised the standard consensus-building process. If appropriate, remind participants that deletion discussions are
not a vote
, and link to a suitable information page. Remember to
assume good faith
in your tone – the participants may well intend to help by doing what they think is right.
Suspected
sock-puppetry
: If blatant, individual comments may be
tagged
(this is likely to be seen as lacking good faith or offensive if the case is not clear). If unsure, report as usual for suspected sock-puppetry, and indicate your concern and reason in the discussion for the closer and future participants, but in a way that addresses the page under discussion, rather than
attacking the user
Closing discussions that have run their full time
Further information:
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion § Closure
Shortcut
WP:XFDCLOSE
WP:XFDCLOSE
Discussions are usually closed after seven days (168 hours). Although the steps or process for closing deletion discussions vary between the
§ Deletion discussion venues
, a few general principles apply for all deletion discussions.
Usually, closing a deletion discussion is an
administrator action
, but
experienced users in good standing may close or relist discussions per the guidelines below
When closing a discussion, make certain that all pages under discussion have an
XfD notification template
placed upon the page (also known as "
tagging
" the page under discussion), in order to notify others about the discussion. And pay close attention to this for group nominations, as it is not uncommon for only one of the pages in question to have been tagged. In general, if this happens, all the pages under discussion should be tagged, and once that is done,
§ RELIST
the discussion. If circumstances indicate that relisting may be inappropriate, then instead just close (depending on tagging) part or all of the discussion as "no action", due to the lack of tagged notification.
Determining consensus
Shortcut
WP:XFD#CON
WP:XFD#CON
Main pages:
Wikipedia:Consensus § Determining consensus
, and
Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
Consensus
is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and
is not calculated solely by number of votes
Outcomes should reflect the
rough consensus
reached in the discussion and
community consensus on a wider scale
. (While
consensus can change
, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale; see also
this ArbCom ruling
.)
In addition to the more
common outcomes
, the closer may determine that other possible decision results or even "combination" results, may be appropriate. For example,
merge and delete
merge and move
disambiguate
, or
transwiki
. In any case, the closer should aim to base their decision upon consensus and Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and community norms.
In addition, it can sometimes be useful to provide a brief explanatory note, to make the rationale for the decision clear. This is especially true in heated and high public profile discussions, or where many views will be given little weight (or a few views given substantial weight), or where you think the basis of the close may be misunderstood or potentially
reviewed by others
Also remember that
nobody is obligated to close a discussion
, nor is it crucial that a discussion be closed immediately once its week-long run has ended. If you feel that there is a conflict between the views expressed, and
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
(e.g., an inappropriate super-majority view
without an appropriate basis
), it may be preferable to instead comment yourself, rather than closing, even if the "due date" for closing has been reached, and leave the close to another editor.
No consensus
Shortcut
WP:XFD#NOCON
WP:XFD#NOCON
To implement a
no consensus
outcome, see
§ Deletion discussion venues
for details.
See also:
§ Common outcomes
, and
Wikipedia:Bartender's closing
When discussions end with a lack of a
rough consensus
for any one particular action, the result of the discussion is to maintain the
status quo
, generally with the content being kept. This differs from a "consensus against" outcome (though some editors may use the phrase
no consensus
or "no consensus to support" as a softer way to describe a rejected proposal). Sometimes there is a consensus for change, but no consensus on which change to make, or which action to take; this is not uncommon when discussing move, merge, or redirect targets.
In some situations, the "status quo" may not be an appropriate result. For example:
Redirects for discussion
- no consensus closes may
still lead to a retargeting or disambiguation
Files for discussion
- if there is
significant doubt
raised about the copyright status of a file, the closing administrator may choose to delete the file under the
precautionary principle
Deletion review (DRV)
- If the administrator closes the deletion review as
no consensus
, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However, the closer may, at their discretion, instead
#Relist
at the relevant XfD venue. If the decision under appeal was a
speedy deletion
, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the
appropriate deletion discussion forum
, if they so choose.
Discussion and debate on a proposal may continue on talk pages after a "no consensus" closure. A "no consensus" closure also does not necessarily prevent editors from starting a new, updated discussion, based upon what may have been learned from the previous discussion, but simply renominating a page for deletion immediately after a "no consensus" closure could be considered
disruptive
due to wasting the community's volunteer time.
No quorum
Shortcuts
WP:NOQUORUM
WP:NOQUORUM
WP:NPASR
WP:NPASR
"Wikipedia:Soft deletion" redirects here. For the failed proposal, see
Wikipedia:Soft deletion (failed proposal)
If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few comments, in the case of AfDs not closed as merge), no one has opposed deletion,
and
(if the page is an article) it hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past,
the closer should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD
and follow the instructions listed at
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion § Procedure for administrators
. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.
If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:
relisting
the discussion;
closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (
NPASR
);
closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
soft deleting the article;
closing as soft merge.
Shortcut
WP:SOFTDELETE
WP:SOFTDELETE
soft deletion
may result from a discussion that receives minimal participation. As a result of this closure, the article is deleted, but it can be restored for any reason on request at
Requests for undeletion
. The closer should make it clear the deletion is soft as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.
Shortcut
WP:SOFTMERGE
WP:SOFTMERGE
soft merge
may result from a discussion that receives minimal participation. As a result of this closure, the articles are merged or added to the merge backlog, but the merge can be undone or removed from the backlog by any editor. Merge discussions can be closed as
soft merge
after a week of no discussion and do not need to be relisted. As with soft deletion, the closer should make it clear that their closure is soft.
Problematic or likely problematic articles
with an appropriate redirection target may be
blanked and redirected
by any editor if there are no objections. This similarly applies to deletion nominations as well; if no editor suggests that the corresponding article should be kept, then redirection is an option.
Relisting discussions
Shortcut
WP:RELIST
WP:RELIST
"Wikipedia:Relisting" redirects here. For relisting requested moves, see
Wikipedia:Requested moves § Relisting a requested move
See also:
Wikipedia:Dashboard/Relisted AfD debates
If, at the end of the initial seven-day period:
the discussion has
only a few participants
(including the nominator);
or
the discussion seems to be lacking arguments based on
policy
; or
the participants in the discussion might be nearing a
§ Consensus
it may be appropriate to
relist
the discussion instead of closing, in order to allow for the possibility that further discussion might lead to a discernible consensus. However, relisting should not be a substitute for a
no consensus
closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive discussion, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, but consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days.
Editor qualifications to
relist
a discussion are the same as required to
close
a discussion - see
§ NAC
, for further information.
While having a
deletion notice
on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for potential editors. Therefore, repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is
not recommended
. In general,
a discussion should not be relisted more than twice.
When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should write a short explanation either within the
{{
relist
}}
template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result.
When relisting a discussion, depending on the venue, it should be replaced with a pointer to the current date or removed from the log for its original date and moved to the current date's log. Scripts and gadgets such as
XFDcloser
automate this process.
Non-administrators closing discussions
Shortcut
WP:NACD
WP:NACD
In general,
administrators
(admins) are responsible for closing deletion discussions, but non-administrators who are
registered
(i.e. not
temporary accounts
) may close (or relist) these discussions, with the following provisions:
Non-admin closers should indicate their non-admin status with the
{{
nacd
}}
("non-admin closure") template in the comment for the closure.
Non-admin closers are accountable to the policy at Wikipedia:Administrators §§
Accountability
​ and
Involved admins
. Repeated non-adherence to the policy may result in being
topic banned
from closing discussions.
Non-admin closers should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as
delete
, because only admins can delete pages.
Certain venues have made an exception to this rule: Non-admins may close
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion
discussions as
orphan
and – per the implementation process at
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working
– may close
CfD
discussions as delete.
Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins.
Do not close a discussion if:
you are not fairly experienced with (or are unfamiliar with)
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
, in particular, the policies on
consensus
and
deletion
, and the workings of deletion discussions
you have offered an opinion in the discussion
the discussion is for a page in which you have a
vested interest
; that is, a page that you have edited heavily
However, upon
withdrawing your own nomination
, you may close the discussion you started with the outcome of
speedy keep
, when all other viewpoints were for keep as well.
If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone with a registered account may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale.
Shortcut
WP:REOPEN
WP:REOPEN
Closed discussions generally should not be re-opened. A non-admin should not re-open a discussion unless they were the closer. An
uninvolved
administrator, acting in their individual capacity, and giving their reasoning, may re-open a discussion closed by a non-admin. The administrator should notify the original closer of the re-opening. Discussions may also be re-opened as a result of a closure review discussion, such as at the
Administrators' noticeboard
, or at the
Deletion review
or
Move review
processes. If a discussion is re-opened, only take it as a sign that the decision may not have been as obvious as you thought.
When
closing an AfD
, do the following:
{{subst:Afd top|'''result'''}}. ~~~~
← Add
this line
at the
very top
of the page, with the appropriate result in '''
bold
'''.
===[[Header]]===
← Leave this line, the article page title, alone.
← Remove the line containing
{{
REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD
}}
DISCUSSION
← Body of the discussion stays unchanged
{{subst:Afd bottom}}
← Add bottom template
Common outcomes
See also:
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion § Recommendations and outcomes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
, and
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes
As a result of a closer
§ Determining consensus
, a deletion discussion may result in one of a number of distinct outcomes, with certain outcomes being more common at certain deletion discussion venues.
Common outcomes
Outcome
Commonly used for
Details
Keep
All
rough consensus
to retain (i.e. not delete) a page, though not necessarily in its current form. To implement a 'keep' outcome: close the deletion discussion as 'keep'; edit the page to remove the deletion notice; and record the outcome on the page's
talk page
using one of several venue-specific templates (see
§ Deletion discussion venues
for details).
Delete
All
A rough consensus to remove (i.e. not retain) a page, including its entire revision history. To implement a 'delete' outcome: close the deletion discussion as 'delete'; delete the page, and link to the deletion discussion in the deletion summary; and, if the page should not be recreated, remove incoming links in other pages (except in discussions, archives and tracking pages).
Delete
, requested by subject
Articles
When considering closing a deletion discussion as
delete
due to deletion requested by subject, closers should review
the relevant deletion policy
and
the relevant biographies of living persons policy
, to confirm the criteria are met and use their discretion.
Move
(non-category pages), or
Rename
(categories)
All
Issues to be addressed by changing the page title (and perhaps then expanding or improving its content). This can happen at AFD especially, if the article could be suitable for Wikipedia, but is created under an inappropriate title, and was nominated for deletion, but consensus agrees it is
fixable
if the title is changed. Categories require a different method than other pages.
Merge
Articles, categories, templates
This combines two separate pages into a single page. Merge !votes should be
specific and clear
. If you wish to merge articles, use the
AfD
process. If you wish to merge templates or categories, use the
TfD
or
CfD
processes instead.
Redirect
Articles, templates, miscellaneous pages
This would be used if the page has no unique and usable content, but information about the topic is found in another article.
Disambiguate
(or "Dabify")
Articles, redirects
If the discussion concludes that the title can refer to many topics, it can be changed to a disambiguation page to list all of them.
Userfy
Articles, templates, miscellaneous pages
This would move the page into the creator's userspace so that they may make improvements. If
Wikipedia essays
are nominated, they will sometimes be moved to userspace if they are found to violate policies or guidelines.
Incubate
(or "Draftify")
Articles
This changes the article into a draft to be improved so that it meets inclusion requirements.
Delete but allow undeleting with
an appropriate licence
Files
If a file is only deleted due to copyright issues, it could be re-uploaded if these issues are resolved
Listify
Categories
This means to delete the category and create a list article instead.
Retarget
Redirects
This means that the redirect should lead to a different page.
Refine
(or "Keep and refine")
Redirects
The redirect should lead to a specific section of the page it currently targets (e.g.
Africa
Africa § History
Deletion discussions needing action before their end date
Nomination errors and issues
In certain situations, a deletion discussion
may require
correcting, moving elsewhere, or a null outcome ("
procedural close
"), due to issues with the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page itself. A deletion discussion that is poorly formatted should not be closed for this reason alone, in order to avoid
biting new users
. Instead,
fix it
Error
Correction
No deletion notice
on nominated page
The best course of action is to add the tag and note that you've done so. The time of tagging would then be treated as the nomination time.
Currently linked from
Main Page
If the nominated page is currently linked from the Main Page, remove any tag from the page itself. Then, if there are legitimate concerns, please use
Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors
to have the link removed before nominating the article. If there are clearly none, or the nomination is disruptive, the nomination page should be closed early (see 'speedy close').
Nomination is an immediate objection to a prior deletion outcome
, more appropriate for
deletion review
List it at deletion review on the nominator's behalf, and link it appropriately (including linking it from the closed discussion), notify the nominator, and close the deletion discussion.
Venue inappropriate
(e.g., a file hosted on
Commons
, category or redirect at AFD, or discussions that the chosen venue is unable to address)
List the topic at the correct venue, notify the nominator, and close the discussion providing a link to the new discussion. Never close a discussion as a wrong venue without opening a discussion at an appropriate one.
Page does not exist
or has already been deleted prior to the nomination
Close the discussion, and place a notice on the nominator's talk page. It is entirely possible that they may have mistyped the page name, or that the page was already deleted before they could start the deletion discussion. If the former was the case, politely tell the nominator to properly start a new discussion with the correct title, and the time they start the new discussion will be treated as the nomination time.
Early closure
In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days (168 hours) to allow interested editors adequate time to participate. However, under certain circumstances, discussions may be closed prior to the seven-day timeframe.
Closers should apply good judgment before speedily closing a discussion, since often it is best to allow the discussion to continue for the entirety of the seven-day period.
Reason
Explanation
Withdrawn
Shortcut
WP:WITHDRAWN
WP:WITHDRAWN
While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep or added substantive comments unrelated to deletion, the discussion
should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it
See how to withdraw a nomination
The nominator can
strike
out their nom statement, and add a note about the withdrawal.
Early closure is inappropriate where it appears that the withdrawal is simply an attempt to short-circuit an ongoing discussion.
If the nominator appears to have genuinely changed their mind due to other views expressed, the discussion should not be considered withdrawn. Instead, consider whether to use any of the early closures below.
Speedy keep
A "speedy keep" close is warranted when the nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—
and
no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. A "speedy keep" outcome is also appropriate when the nomination unquestionably is an attempt to vandalize or to otherwise create disruption. For example:
Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion (possibly in an attempt to
game the system
), when
dispute resolution
would be a more appropriate course.
Nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (this includes
editor harassment
).
The nominated page is a policy or guideline. The deletion process is not a forum for policy concerns.
Frivolous or vexatious
nominations (recently featured articles, for example). This includes re-nominating the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion.
Nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question.
The nominator is
banned
, so their edits are not to be retained. In that case, the
nominated page
is speedily kept while the
nomination
can be tagged with
{{
db-g5
}}
and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the nomination should not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision).
Speedy delete
(see also
§ Speedy deletion
When the nominated page unambiguously falls within any criteria for speedy deletion, particularly
criterion G10
(attack page) or
criterion G12
(copyright violation), it is not necessary to wait until the end of the discussion period.
Snowball clause
The "snowball clause" exists to avoid
process for the sake of process
, or when the outcome of the deletion discussion is, or has become,
almost certain
, such that there is not a "snowball's chance in hell" that the outcome will be anything other than what is expected, and there is clearly no need at all to prolong discussion further.
This clause
should not be used
to close a discussion when a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because deletion discussions are
not a vote
; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon.
Search all deletion discussions
Shortcut
WP:SEARCHDEL
WP:SEARCHDEL
To search for any mention of an existing
fullpagename
of interest in "all discussion types" listed above, go to the page of interest, and
preview
this line in any of its wikitext:
{{
#lst:
WP: Deletion process | search links }}
These three
search links
will then appear in this box (but in warning coloration):
discussion
deletion
From that preview, activate a search. From search results, modify the query, return to the preview, or not. Preview is safe. Return and search all three.
Pages with many revisions
Shortcut
WP:BIGDELETE
WP:BIGDELETE
The deletion of pages with long histories may impact server performance. As a precaution, therefore, deletions of pages with more than
5,000 revisions
require the special "bigdelete" user right, which administrators do not have. Such deletions can be requested of stewards at
meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous
Notes
The acronym "NPASR" may be also be used outside of this context, and does not necessarily refer to a close due to no quorum.
Usually articles unreferenced for years.
However, discussions with minimal participation where no one opposes deletion should be closed per
§ No quorum
When adding comments within the
{{
relist
}}
template, please keep in mind that this is a
Wikipedia administration template
, and should not be used to give priority to one's own desired outcome
See
this July 2015 discussion
See also
Alternative outlets to recreate deleted articles
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions
Deletion and deletionism
Deletion archival templates
Deletion guidelines for administrators
Deletion policy
Deletion precedents
Deletion review guide
Guide to deletion
Introduction to deletion process
List of policies to cite in deletion debates
Mass nomination
Page blanking
Undeletion policy
Wikipedia:Relist bias
Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the
Community portal
For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the
Dashboard
General community
topics
Administration
News
The Signpost
Goings-on
In the media
Meetups
Mailing lists
Wikipedians
Statistics
The Wikipedia Library
Centralized discussion
Village pump
Idea lab
Policy
Proposals
Technical
Miscellaneous
WMF
Holidays
Bots
Contents
and
grading
Requested articles
Most-wanted articles
Images needing articles
Articles needing images
Articles for creation
WP:AFC/R
WP:AFC/C
Creating articles
Help
Vital articles
Articles for improvement
Peer review
Good article nominations
Featured article candidates
Lists
Pictures
Topics
Article translation
Pages
Main Page
Errors
WikiProjects
and
collaborations
Directory
Culture and the arts
Geographical
History and society
Science, technology and engineering
Wikipedia assistance and tasks
Patrols
Recent changes
Counter-Vandalism Unit
Organizations category
Awards
and
feedback
Reward board
Contests
A nice cup of tea and a sit down
Charitableness
WikiLove
Compliment before criticism
Kindness Campaign
Thanks!
Maintenance tasks
Task Center
Open tasks
Backlog
Category
Admin category
Edit requests
Category
Database reports
Category tracker
Dusty articles
Special pages
New pages
Recent changes
Controversial issues
Administrators
and
noticeboards
Administrators' noticeboard
Incidents
Edit warring
Vandalism
Admin dashboard
Admin requests
Closure
Page protection
User permissions
Sockpuppets
Open proxies
Revision deletion
Oversight
Request
Usernames
Changing
Title blacklist
OTRS
Bureaucrats'
Requests for adminship
and
bureaucratship
Arbitration Committee
Requests
Enforcement
Content dispute
resolution
Requests for comment
Third opinion
Dispute resolution noticeboard
Biographies of living persons
Conflict of interest
External links
Fringe theories
Neutral point of view
No original research
Reliable sources
Other noticeboards
and assistance
Regional notice boards
Requests for help
Category
Asking questions
Teahouse
Help desk
Reference desk
Adopt-a-user
Copyright assistance
Copyright investigations
Text problems
Media questions
Resource requests
Mergers
History mergers
Moves
Page importation
Spam
Blacklist
Whitelist
Bots
Education
General sanctions
Editor sanctions
Long-term abuse
Deletion
discussions
Guide
Admin
Today
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy
Proposed
BLP
Review
Undeletion
Arguments to avoid
Arguments to make
Article Rescue
Elections
and
voting
Requests for comment
meta
Wikimedia Foundation elections
WP Democracy
Milestones
Directories, indexes,
and summaries
Departments
Edit summary legend
Editor's index
Essays
FAQs
Glossary
Abbreviations
Help
Manual of Style
Simplified
Rules
Five pillars
Policies
Guidelines
Shortcuts
Templates
Citation templates
Tips
Today
Tools
Wiki markup
Media
Category
Templates
Retrieved from "
Categories
Wikipedia deletion guidelines
Wikipedia deletion
Wikipedia processes
Wikipedia project content guidelines
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia semi-protected project pages
Search link templates with namespace parameters
Wikipedia
Deletion process
Add topic