华佗百科:删除守则/提议

华佗百科,全民书写的医学百科全书!
跳转至: 导航搜索

Template:Policylist Deletion

The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how material which does not meet the relevant content criteria is identified and removed from Wikipedia.

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not), encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research), editorial approach (neutral point of view), as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, is usually deleted.

Deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from view. Unlike page blanking, which can be performed (or reverted) by any user, deletion can be performed only by administrators. In the normal operations of Wikipedia, more than one thousand articles are deleted each day, either summarily or after discussion, in accordance with a deletion process that is open to all users.

This page describes how articles which are believed to be suitable for deletion should be handled, explains the various deletion options and processes, and summarizes a number of common problems with Wikipedia articles that may call for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion.

{{db|...}}
{{subst:prod|...}}
{{subst:afd}}

Three common tags typed to propose that
an entry on Wikipedia be deleted

Background

Anyone except a blocked user is welcome to participate in nominating articles for deletion or discussion of current nominations. Participants in the deletion process should read (and be familiar with) the core Wikipedia policies of Verifiability, No Original Research and Neutral Point of View first, since deletion is based upon policy and not personal likes and dislikes.

They should also bear in mind what Wikipedia is not, and not abuse the deletion processes.

Finally, it's worth noting that (as with all Wikipedia consensus decisions) the purpose of a discussion is to bring out a "sense of the community" and the valid points for or against each view. So deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing.

Deletion processes

There are three main processes for deleting articles, in order:

Process Usage How to do it
Speedy deletion (SD) Pages that are suitable for immediate deletion and which can obviously be deleted on sight (see criteria for speedy deletion; examples include patent nonsense, advertising, pure vandalism and certain housekeeping situations). Flag the article for speedy deletion using a deletion template, e.g. {{db|Reason}}, {{db-nonsense}}, {{db-vandalism}}, {{db-author}}.
Proposed deletion Articles whose deletion should be uncontroversial but which don't meet the "utter rubbish" criteria for speedy deletion. This is often used for articles which appear to have genuine content but which the deleter feels are not suitable content for Wikipedia, such as advertising, vanity articles, and the like. Flag with {{subst:prod|Reason}} which will also place it into Category:Proposed deletion; if the deletion is not contested by anyone for five days it can be deleted at an administrator's discretion. Contested prods may be moved to AFD for fuller discussion.
Articles for deletion (AFD) A five-day public debate and discussion on the merits of the article and its best treatment. Applicable to all articles where deletion is unsure, seriously contested, or may need debate, and all borderline or controversial cases. List page on Articles for deletion, following the process on that page.

Other types of deletion have their own similar processes, described on pages such as:

Collectively, these processes, together with Articles for deletion, are sometimes referred to as the XfD processes.

Deletion lag times

Each deletion category has a slightly different procedure. After an appropriate lag time, an administrator will delete the page if a rough consensus for deletion is reached, with the actual deletion procedure as described in Wikipedia:Deletion process.

The current lag times are:

Problem articles where deletion may be needed

Problems that may require deletion
Problem with page Solution Add this tag
Use Proposed deletion or List on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD). See Proposed deletion or AfD in 3 steps for instructions and tags.

Subject of article cannot meet one of the following consensually accepted guidelines:

Use Proposed deletion or List on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD). See Proposed deletion or AfD in 3 steps for instructions and tags.
List on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (WP:MfD). See WP:MfD for instructions and tags.
Article is possible copyright infringement
List on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. {{copyvio}} or
{{copyvio|url=source}}
Image is possible copyright infringement List on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. {{imagevio}} or
{{imagevio¦url=source}}
Image or other media needs deleting (but not because of copyright violation) List on Wikipedia:Images for deletion (WP:IfD). See WP:IfD for instructions and tags.
A useless redirect
Don't worry; redirects are cheap.

If you must, list on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion (WP:RfD) but only after reading our recommendations on deleting redirects.

See WP:RfD for instructions and tags.
A category scheme gone awry
List on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (WP:CfD). See WP:CfD for instructions and tags.
A redundant or misguided series box. List on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. {{tfd}} (Put in the box itself.)
A redundant or misguided stub template or category. List on Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. {{sfd-c}} for stub categories
{{sfd-t}} for stub templates
Can never be other than a dictionary article ("dicdef")
Turn the article into a redirect (or rename and refactor it) as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs).

Check that Wiktionary does not already have a dictionary article. If a Wiktionary article does not already exist, transwiki the article to Wiktionary. Afterwards, either replace with a soft redirect or list the article for deletion.

See Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary for instructions and tags.
Article is a source text (but not a copyvio)
Move text to Wikisource and replace it with a stub and a soft redirect.  
Article is a hoax (not an article about a hoax) List on Suspected hoax articles and/or propose deletion. {{Hoax}} and/or use Proposed deletion.
Article is a candidate for speedy deletion including:
List on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions.

In simple cases, just add the {{deletebecause}} tag and the page will automatically be listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (CAT:CSD).

{{db¦reason}}

或许不需要提交删除的条目问题

条目中的问题 解决方法 适用标签
以中文以外的语言撰写
列入Category:维基百科需要翻译的文章 {{Notchinese}}
小作品(但有发展潜力)
扩充内容 {{stub}},或是其他列在Category:小作品类别中的适合模板。
内容类似字典的条目
修改条目的开头介绍文字,移除“表示”、“意思为”或其他类似的用语。 {{stub}},或是其他列在Category:小作品类别中的适合模板。
似乎是某项主题中的小分支,且重要性不足以单独成为条目
将有用的内容合并至所属的主要条目中,并且将旧有条目重定向 {{mergeto¦article}}
从其他条目复制过来的内容
进行清理或提案合并及设置重定向重定向

若您不知道如何进行合并,可将该条目列入Category:需要合并的条目中,并加上相应的模板。

{{合并¦条目名}}
需要改进的文章
将条目列入Category:维基百科清理 {{cleanup}},或是其他更精确的模板
需要“大幅”改进的文章 将条目列入Wikipedia:需要关注的页面 {{Attention}}
存在许多中立性问题的文章
将条目列入Wikipedia:需要关注的页面 {{npov}}
准确性有争议的文章
将条目列入Wikipedia:正在讨论的条目 {{disputed}}
拥有相同名称的不同主题
建立消歧义页面。 {{disambig}}
无法验证文章的资料来源
按照Wikipedia:可供查证中的步骤处理。

若仍然无效,请再回来这里。如果“真的完全”无法验证,则可删除它。

{{cleanup-verify}}
不恰当的用户页面 直接向该用户说明

如果没有作用,再回来这里

 
遭到破坏的文章
回复它。
 
无法协作或蓄意捣乱的用户 保持冷静

若有必要请将该用户列入Wikipedia:正在讨论的条目中。

参见:Wikipedia:模板消息/删除

Nominating an article for deletion

See the instructions at speedy deletions, proposed deletions, or articles for deletion accordingly. Following the procedures properly will place a warning at the top of the article to notify readers that the article is being considered for deletion. If no such notice is added please add one yourself as appropriate.

Please note warning notices may vary for copyright problems, and they may not be required for pages that have no content (blank pages or redirects) and have no significant history ("significant history" includes any history of content being added or removed, excepting candidate for speedy deletion).

See also: Wikipedia:Boilerplate_text#Listed_for_deletion and Wikipedia:Example deletion discussion.

Renominations and recurring candidates

Think carefully. Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination.

Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete.

If an article has been on AfD before but users want to start another iteration of a deletion debate, they should consider using this template, {{subst:afdx|2nd}}. This creates a link to a new debate page and prevents the old one from being overwritten or re-used.

A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion (if kept) or re-created (if deleted). The most common reason for a repeat nomination is that there was marked lack of discussion or lack of consensus in the original decision and the second vote is required to clarify opinion. Otherwise:

Repeated nomination for deletion In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy. Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept.
Repeated recreation of deleted article If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Wikipedia article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in good faith may well be reasonable. This underlines that research and good writing is part of creating good articles. Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article. But recreation of articles which should clearly remain deleted may result in the page being permanantly protected with a {{deletedpage}} tag to prevent its recreation.

Renomination of an article previously considered on AfD should include this template, {{subst:afdx|2nd}}, which will prevent overwriting of the previous discussion:

Template:Error:not substituted


Transwikied articles

Please note that if the original discussion result was to "transwiki", the page becomes a candidate for speedy deletion once the transwiki is completed, and does not need to go through AfD again.

Abuse of deletion process

The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept.

It should also be noted that packing the discussion with sockpuppets (multiple accounts) and meatpuppets (advertising or soliciting of desired views) does not reflect a genuine consensus, and usually doesn't raise much in the way of novel policy considerations. A deletion debate is not a popular vote, but a way of obtaining editors' views as to whether an article meets policy guidelines or not, so these kind of activities don't achieve much. Often, where sock-puppetry is suspected, only editors with a significant history of contributions to Wikipedia will be counted in the rough consensus.

Deletion discussions, closure, reviewing

Commenting on a listing for deletion

Please see the appropriate instructions at speedy deletions, proposed deletions, or articles for deletion accordingly. In general, when someone has listed an article for deletion, anyone else may comment on the request. Please include your opinion and your reasoning and sign with ~~~~. Typical comments include "delete," "keep," "comment:", "redirect to [[article]]," "merge into [[article]] and redirect," "move to Wiktionary / Meta / other GFDL site", "keep and relist in 4 weeks" et al.

Commonly used shorthands can be found at the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Note that "merge into [[article]] and delete" cannot be performed simply by copying and pasting text from the original article into the target unless the information on authorship of the content is somehow preserved, or the text is public domain. Otherwise, only the facts may be merged by completely rewriting the relevant text, so that none of the original copyrightable expression is used.

Normally you should not remove any statements from any deletion discussion. If you suspect a user of adding multiple comments using sockpuppets, feel free to comment and provide pertinent links. The admin who reviews the discussion will investigate and decide whether or not to take that opinion into account.

This restriction does not apply to personal attacks and derogatory comments about living people:[1]

Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. [2]

Decision policy

At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Wikipedia:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains.

Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators expands on this and provides a little rationale.

Early closure

If a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period, for example, a clear consensus for speedy deletion, a clear consensus for a speedy keep, or a consensus for a redirect. The debate should remain transcluded on the appropriate deletion page. If the proposed solution has not achieved a very clear consensus, the listing should remain for the full five-day period. Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea.

Deletion review and undeletion

Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions can lead to Undeletion, a task performed by Administrators if there is support or if a page has obviously been deleted out of process. Undeletion of pages is limited to those pages that are kept in the archive. Some older deleted pages are completely inaccessible.

Privacy

For privacy, a closed deletion debate may be hidden to avoid public embarassment via search engines.

User space

Pages in the User or User Talk namespace can be deleted at that user's request, as well as via WP:MFD or WP:PROD. However, a user's main talk page and archives thereof are, as a rule, (almost) never deleted. This is because they tend to contain many debates involving or regarding that user.

See also