|This page documents an English Wikipedia deletion guideline.|
|Templates and modules|
Even admins should mostly use the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion pages when they think a page should be deleted. There are a few limited exceptions, which are given at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Every admin should also read and understand Wikipedia:Deletion policy.
Once the decision to delete (or not) has been made, please document the decision using the procedures at Wikipedia:Deletion process.
Rough consensus is a term used in consensus decision-making to indicate the "sense of the group" concerning a particular matter under consideration.
Administrators must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, or accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion. If a rough consensus holds that the nomination was made in bad faith, the page may be speedily kept.
If the major stakeholders have not been notified of the proposed deletion or given time to respond, reliable consensus determinations will rarely be possible.
Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus. Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, the page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant.
Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions.
Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area.
Sometimes the term rough consensus is used to indicate a slight consensus, and the term clear consensus is used to indicate an obvious consensus.
The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
With regard to living people, a closing admin must take into account the policy on Biographies of living persons along with our deletion policy for biographies. When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The weight to be given to such a request is a matter for the admin's discretion.
Here are some guidelines administrators should follow in making the decision to delete a page or not, when considering entries on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
If you decide that a page nominated for speedy deletion should not be deleted, simply revert the edit that tagged the page or manually remove the ((db-meta)) derived tag. Briefly explain the reason for refusing the deletion in the edit summary: "Decline A7, does not apply to buildings / books / arcade games / public parks etc", "Decline A7, one source, try PROD / AfD" or "Decline G11, the advertorial language can easily be removed".
Here are some guidelines administrators should follow in making the decision to delete a page or not, when considering entries on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (commonly abbreviated as WP:CFD, CFD, or cfd).
These are four easy steps to do it without using a bot:
It is not hard, just a little time-consuming. Deleting a category (without assistance from a bot) is harder, since the references on the member pages have to be deleted manually.
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions has helpful information that applies to all template deletions, not just those requiring a discussion.
Main page: Wikipedia:Revision deletion
An administrator can delete some revisions of an article while leaving all remaining ones intact. The effect of using Wikipedia:Revision deletion is that the revisions will remain in the page history, but their deleted contents will be available only to administrators. Use of revision deletion must meet specific criteria.
The historical method Wikipedia:Selective deletion has been deprecated except for history merges.
Since the John Seigenthaler Wikipedia biography controversy, various IP addresses and accounts have been making vandalistic edits using large, libelous edit summaries. Such summaries can be removed from most pages using RevisionDelete. (Note that the previous method of deleting the page and undeleting unaffected revisions placed a large strain on the servers for pages with large histories, so RevisionDelete should be used here.)
Main page: Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages
Pages that are repeatedly re-created after deletion in unencyclopedic form or against policy can be protected from further re-creation. This practice is commonly known as "padlocking", salting the earth, or simply 'salting'. This is done by one of the following:
Before it was possible to protect a page that did not exist, or was deleted, common practice was to transclude the article onto a page with cascading protection enabled, such as Wikipedia:Protected titles.
Forum or discussion