Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Removal or deletion of content
This Wikipedia page has been superseded by Wikipedia:Essay directory and is retained primarily for historical reference. |
This essays in a nutshell page summarizes the gist of user written essays on Wikipedia. Essays can also be navigated via categories, navigation templates, or Special:Search. For a listing and more information on navigating essays, see Wikipedia:Essay directory. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. |
Essay | In a nutshell | Shortcuts | Impact |
---|---|---|---|
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions |
Always try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions, avoid short one-liners or simple links, and explain why an article does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies. |
High | |
Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews |
Always try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion reviews, avoiding short one-liners or simple links. Explain why the closing administrator's decision does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies. Keep in mind the deletion review is not AfD Round 2. |
Mid | |
Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions |
Deletion decisions about non-free content at the English Wikipedia are governed by Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, thus the strongest arguments are those that explain clearly how they are based upon that policy. |
Unranked | |
Arguments to make in deletion discussions |
These are arguments, based on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, that have successfully saved articles from deletion in the past. |
Mid | |
Articles for deletion is not a war zone |
AfD discussions should remain calm and civil, avoid adhering too strongly to either deletionism or inclusionism. |
Mid | |
Avoid repeated arguments |
Avoid repeating statements previously made in AfD discussions. |
Low | |
Blow it up and start over |
A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over. |
Unranked | |
But there must be sources! |
Don't just insist there must be sources out there somewhere, prove it by providing them. |
Unranked | |
Closing Administrator is not an Edit on Demand Service |
A closing administrator's job in an XfD is determining if the consensus is to keep or delete. Editors should boldly improve articles themselves. |
Low | |
Content removal |
When removing content from a page, it is important to be sure there is consensus to do so. |
Low | |
Delete the junk |
Wikipedia lacks articles on a lot of notable subjects. We don't need to keep an article with no merit in itself just because it might, theoretically, be possible to make a good article on the subject. |
Mid | |
Don't build the Frankenstein |
Be careful to verify, when adding references to an article to establish notability, that the subject referenced is actually the one the article is about, and not someone or something else with the same name. |
Low | |
Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity |
The criteria that would get an article in mainspace deleted mostly don't apply to drafts. |
Unranked | |
Don't follow the leader |
It's not necessary to agree with the nominator or the first editor to comment, do not be ashamed to be in the minority |
Mid | |
Don't move articles at AfD |
An article listed at AfD might need a better title than it currently has, but it can wait. |
Unranked | |
Encourage full discussions |
Editors are encouraged to fully discuss all arguments in AfD discussions. If you bring up a point in the discussion, it is okay if someone else responds to it. |
Low | |
How to save an article proposed for deletion |
Don't panic, discuss, familiarize yourself with the deletion process, and address the issues. |
High | |
I just don't like it |
Liking or not liking the topic is not a strong argument in a discussion. |
Mid | |
Kittens |
Stub articles can be useful, but avoid mass creating stub articles. |
Unranked | |
Liar, liar, pants on fire |
Calling an editor a liar is not a valid argument in AfD discussions (or anywhere else, for that matter). |
Low | |
No big loss |
Deletion of any article is a loss for the wider community and the encyclopedia in the long term, as that's knowledge lost because one person forgot to add references. |
Mid | |
Non-admin closure |
Administrators close most deletion discussions; regular editors may close some non-controversial discussions with "keep", "merge" or "redirect" closure when they can. |
High | |
Nothing |
Wikipedia is not about everything, but that, by itself, is not argument for deletion. |
Mid | |
Overzealous deletion |
Overzealous deletion goes against Wikipedia's assume good faith principle |
Mid | |
Quote your own essay |
In deletion discussions, editors should feel free to quote their own essays provided that they do not hold them out as policy or consensus. Sometimes, there may be reasons not to quote your own essay. |
Low | |
Relisting can be abusive |
Avoid relisting a deletion discussion if a consensus has been firmly and recently established. |
Low | |
The Heymann Standard |
The amount of work that an editor feels a page needs to change a delete vote. |
Low | |
TenPoundHammer's Law |
If you don't even know the name of an upcoming album, you probably don't know enough about it to write an article. |
Mid | |
Why was the page I created deleted? |
Deletion, like everything else in Wikipedia, is about consensus between editors. Deletion does not always have to be permanent. |
Mid | |
Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole |
Don't rush in and suggest an article has no reliable sources without taking time out to find them. |
Mid |