This help page needs to be updated. The reason given is: this manual may contain out of date information, examples or images. Please help update this help page to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (February 2020) |
One of Wikipedia's strengths is how easily editors create new Wikipedia articles—quick, efficient, no bureaucracy to get permission from. But some editors abuse the privilege, creating nonsense articles, attack articles, or promotional articles, for instance. Others just make mistakes because they don't understand Wikipedia's rules and purpose: They create an article about a non-notable topic, or a subject already covered by an article of a different name, or containing a definition (which should be a Wiktionary entry)—not an encyclopedic topic, for example.
In order to keep Wikipedia the useful encyclopedia that it is, articles with all these problems need to be improved or removed. For Wikipedia, the challenge is to have processes that delete inappropriate articles (more than a thousand a day) while keeping potentially good articles and avoiding offending well-intentioned editors. In this chapter, you'll learn the different ways to deal with problem articles (often without resorting to one of the three deletion processes). You'll also learn what recourse you and other editors have if you feel that an article was deleted inappropriately.
You can stumble across a problem article in a number of ways—doing a search, reviewing the User Contributions page of an editor, looking through Special:Newpages, or just clicking " Random article" to see what you see. When your first reaction is, "You're kidding!" or "I can't believe this is a Wikipedia article," your second reaction should be to analyze the article, systematically. There may be grounds for a quick deletion, or you may have to do some further research.
Here's a systematic approach to dealing with an article that you think may not belong in Wikipedia. Ask yourself the following questions in order:
At Wikipedia, notability (see the section about notability) is an important criterion for creating a new article. Since Wikipedia contains no original research, notability is determined by coverage of the topic in upstanding, independent sources, like books, newspapers, and sometimes Web sites. (For full details, check out the guideline Wikipedia:Notability; shortcut: WP:N.)
At its heart, deleting an article—other than by speedy deletion—is the Wikipedia community's way of saying that reliable sources of information simply don't exist out there in the world to make the article lengthy enough to stand on its own. Of course, it's impossible for you, or other editors, individually or collectively, to know if that's really true. You simply have to make your best guess, because it's impossible to prove something's non-existence.
Consider, for example, an article about a high school teacher, describing her classroom manner, the names of her pets, and how much her students like her. Is that ever going to be acceptable as an article? Is it likely that a number of newspaper articles have been solely about this teacher? While it's possible (if, say, the article's about the National Teacher of the Year), it's also unlikely. If a quick search turns up nothing, then the article should be tossed.
Compare, by contrast, an article about a 19th-century Portuguese poet. If the article makes no claims about notability (says nothing about "famous", or "well-known", then it's a candidate for speedy deletion. But you're probably not an expert on 19th century poets, of any nationality, so for you it's probably a sheer guess as to whether you're looking at a vanity—someone's great-great-great-grandfather—or someone once famous who's faded into obscurity, but whose life and accomplishments are well-documented in books published more than a hundred years ago.
You have three options when faced with a problematical article that you decide you don't want to nominate for a speedy deletion until you evaluate notability:
The hardest articles to fix are massive copyright violations, when you believe there's an article in there somewhere, one that Wikipedia doesn't have. You need to trim these to the bone—keep in only the verifiable facts. When the text is lengthy, you need to remove most of it, because minor rewording isn't going to cure the problem.
If you trim the article to the most important facts (facts can't be copyrighted), then the legal liability issue goes away. (Yes, older versions of the page are still available, but search engines ignore them, as do sites that take large amounts of Wikipedia and reuse it.) Also, you can draw on the text in the older version as you look for acceptable sources, without keeping it in the current version.
If you're not going to fix the article, you need to delete the information that's a copyright violation, and put a template on the top of the page about the problem. (See the "Instructions" section of the page Wikipedia:Copyright problems, shortcut WP:CP.) If you can't find a salvageable article—the topic is non-notable—then recommend the article for speedy deletion to get rid of the article immediately ( the section about Speedy Deletion). (Using both may seem like overkill, but copyright violations are dangerous to Wikipedia, and need to be dealt with promptly.)
If you find a problem with an article, consider some alternatives that might make the author of the article feel better, while protecting the quality of Wikipedia. These alternatives also have the advantage of not requiring an administrator's help:
Only administrators can delete articles outright. Your job is to ask for deletion using one of three methods:
Each of the three methods follows a different procedure, discussed next.
The factual accuracy of this help page may be compromised due to out-of-date information. The reason given is: Schools don't qualify for A7. Please help update this help page to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. |
Speedy deletions are based on specific criteria, listed in the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (shortcut: WP:CSD). (See Figure 19-2.)
If you want to propose a speedy deletion for an article, you need to cite a specific criteria found on this page, either from the "G" (general) series (which applies to all types of pages, not just articles), or the "A" (article) series. For example, criteria G2 applies to test page (pages created by a new editor, just exploring possibilities).
You use the criteria to determine the template to post on the article; once you've done that, an admin shows up fairly quickly, reviews your nomination for deletion, and decides whether to remove the template (as an error) or accept it and delete the article. If you've made a particularly egregious error in placing the template on the page, you'll also probably get a note to that effect from the admin.
Take, for example, an article called Timberwilde Elementary School. The first step in any speedy deletion is to figure out whether the article in fact meets any specific Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD). The entire article under consideration in this example reads, "Timberwilde Elementary School, Built In 1980, Is A School In The Texas District Northside Independent School District." That's better than the original posting, which read, in its entirety, "Timberwilde Elementary School Is The School Of Awesomeness! It Has A Graet Varitey Of Students Teachers And Staff! Visit Us At NISD.NET/TIMBERWILDE Click On Campus Webpage."
This article looks like it fits CSD number A7, "No indication of importance/significance." But before you pull the trigger, you should check five other things:
So, from the review, it seems fair to say that this article looks like an A7.
Once you've completed your initial review and found a criterion for deletion that fits, you can turn to the second step: actually nominating the article for deletion. Here's the process:
1. Further down the CSD page, in the "Deletion templates" section, look for the templates that match the specific criteria you've found.
2. When the specific templates for a criterion don't fit the situation exactly, use a general criterion.
3. Edit the article page, adding the template at the top of the edit box.
4. Add an edit summary, being sure to mention both "speedy delete" and the specific CSD (in this case, "A7"). Preview the page, and then press 'Publish changes'.
5. Post a notice on the user talk page of the editor who created the article.
Once you complete these steps, you're done for now. Check back in a day or so. What you do next depends on what's happened to the article.
Proposed deletion (shortcut: WP:PROD) is a way to nominate an article for deletion, used when you think the deletion won't be controversial. If the deletion meets the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion ( the section about speedy deletion), then use that. But often you can't; for example, when an article contains a bit of reasonable content, or indicates that the topic is notable.
Nominating an article as a proposed deletion starts a 7-day clock. If no other editor objects, then an administrator shows up after 7 days, reviews the nomination, and, if it looks okay, deletes the article.
As convenient as the proposed deletion process it, you can't use it on the article if any of the following are true:
You can check for these three situations by looking at the article history. Normally it's not very long; if it is, you should rethink the prod (consider an AfD instead).
If you can't do a proposed deletion because of one of these three circumstances, your choices are to drop the matter or use the AfD process ( the section about Articles for Deletion) to nominate the article for deletion.
Take as an example the article SQL-I. SQL-I, the article says, is a programming language, "a tool anyone with basic knowledge of SQL syntax can learn in one day." It "provides system administrators, advanced users and independent developers the option to write their own plug-ins." You could argue that this article's a candidate for speedy deletion, either as an A7 (no claim to notability) or a G11 (blatant advertising). But there's a bit of meat to the article (the total text is about three times what's quoted here), and a prod is just as efficient as a CSD (it just takes longer), so you decide to do a prod instead.
When you're considering a proposed deletion, first you appropriately research the article. Researching is critical because an incorrect prod is worse than an incorrect CSD. Articles that meet the CSD usually don't contain much useful material, so if the deletion's in error, very little is lost. With a prod, there's normally more information in the article—more of a potential foundation for other editors—as in this case. So if it's deleted by mistake, more is lost.
Since SQL-I is a current software product, a Google or Yahoo search seems reasonable. In Google, searching for both the product name and the company that sells it, and restricting results to English, yields a total of seven results, none of which are of citable quality. Apparently, SQL-I is not notable.
Next, you want to look at the same four other things that you do for potential CSDs:
Once you've completed the initial review, move on to the second step: actually nominating the article for deletion. Here's the process:
1. Edit the article, placing the {{ subst:prod|reason}} template at the top, and then change the word "reason" to explain your rationale.
2. Add an edit summary, being sure to mention proposed delete.
3. Preview the page, and then hit 'Publish changes'.
concern=
parameter, so the template looks like this: {{
subst:prod|concern=Give your reason, which can include an equal sign}}.4. Post a notice on the user talk page of the editor who created the article, and anyone else who was a major contributor.
After you're done, check back every day or two. What you do next depends on what other editors do:
When you nominate an article for deletion in the AfD process, you must have a good reason. You're asking other editors to spend their time reviewing the article and commenting on the reasons given for the nomination, so don't waste their time. The CSD and proposed deletion processes are preferable, but they don't apply to some articles. Before initiating AfD, explore alternatives to deletion ( the section about alternatives to deletion). AfD is a last resort, when an article is unsalvageable and there are no alternatives. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion ( WP:AFD) lists measures you should consider first, like improving the article or making it a redirect (Figure 19-8).
When you nominate an article for deletion using the AfD process, you get to a point in the process where you have to give a reason. Don't make the mistake of reaching that point only to realize that you don't actually have a good reason. Or worse, don't make the mistake of completing the AfD process and discovering, when discussion starts, that what you thought was an acceptable reason was not.
Reading two policies will keep you from making such mistakes:
You need just a couple of minutes to read each of these. Once you read them, you're well-prepared to do an AfD nomination if that is, in fact, appropriate. You may have to follow some links and do some more reading. If so, what you read will be useful in your normal editing work as well, so consider it an investment, not drudgery.
The following steps walk you through the AfD process using the article Salmon fishing with the Dry Fly as an example. An editor had proposed the article for deletion (with a "prod" template, as discussed above). The editor who created the article removed that template, without any explanation.
This example assumes that you've already tried, unproductively, to discuss with the author the unacceptability of such a "how-to" article. You also did a redirect to the article Fly fishing, but it was reverted, leaving no choice but AfD.
1. Review the "Reasons for deletion" section of Wikipedia:Deletion policy (shortcut: WP:DEL) and prepare your argument as to why the article should be reviewed.
2. Open the article for editing. Add the template {{ subst:afd1}} at the top of the text in the edit box, and add the recommended text to your edit summary, changing "PageName" to the article's actual name.
3. In the AfD message box at the top of the article, click the "Preloaded debate" link (it's in small print, in the second grouping of text).
4. Do the first two steps—select the article's category, and add a reason to the standard template.
5. Copy (Ctrl-C or ⌘-C) the text listed in step 3 of the instructions (in this case, {{ subst:afd3|pg=Salmon fishing with the Dry Fly}}). Then open a new tab or window for the link "today's AfD log", which is also in step 3 of the instructions.
6. Flip back to the window where you were editing the discussion page, as shown in Figure 19-11 (this is the page with the five steps on it). Copy the text in step 4 to the clipboard. Now flip back to the log page (Figure 19-12), paste this text into the edit summary, and then publish the page.
7. Tab to the edit summary box. The box should already be filled in. If not, paste (again) the text from step 4 into that edit summary box. Turn on the "Watch this page" checkbox, if you use your watchlist regularly, since you'll want to watch the discussion. Do a preview, and then publish the page.
8. Go back to the log page and check that it shows your discussion page (it should be at the top). If it does, close it.
9. Go to the discussion page, and then click the link to the article. Copy the small print at the very bottom of the message box (in this case, {{ subst:Afd notice|Salmon fishing with the Dry Fly}} ~~~~ and paste it to a new section on that editor's user talk page.
You're done—except for the actual discussion, of course.
An AfD discussion normally runs for seven days, though it can be closed earlier if the discussion is clearly, massively one-sided. (The page Wikipedia:Snowball clause, shortcut: WP:SNOW, explains the concept of not letting a process continue when continuing makes no sense. The guideline Wikipedia:Speedy keep, shortcut WP:SK, explains when and how to close an AfD as a "keep" before the full seven days are up.)
If you've nominated an article for deletion, be judicious in adding comments to the discussion. You should have made your point when you gave the reason for the nomination. If you keep repeating that, or variants of it, or argumentatively question the reasoning of editors who want to keep the article, you'll lose credibility.
As nominator, think of your role as a facilitator. You've created the agenda, now let the Wikipedia community decide. If you have additional information to offer in response to a posting of another edit, then provide it. Otherwise, let the conversation flow. It's not a win or lose competition; it's a discussion about making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.
If you want to participate in AfD discussions you didn't start, here are some suggestions:
Some Wikipedians think the best way to handle unsourced or poorly sourced articles is to delete them on sight. Ideally, there should be rigorous standards for new articles, to raise the average quality of Wikipedia articles. Conversely, some Wikipedians think Wikipedia ought to have an article on almost any topic, and that a start to an article, no matter how poor, is better than nothing.
Those are extreme positions—almost caricatures. In fact, there's broad agreement in Wikipedia about whether to delete or keep most articles. Most debates are mostly about inherent notability (should all high schools automatically have an article?) rather than about standards that apply to all articles. Still, editors differ, and occasionally name calling erupts—"Inclusionist!" "Deletionist!" Avoid getting caught up in unproductive bickering.
Some editors do care a lot about what they see as excess deletions. If you're interested, take a look at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (shortcut: WP:ARS) and Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling (shortcut: WP:WPPDP).
Someday, an article you created or worked on may be deleted, and you won't know or won't agree with the reason for the deletion. If so, remember that very little is actually deleted in Wikipedia—it's still visible to admins, just not to regular readers. And Wikipedia's processes are not infallible, so you have some options.
First, read Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? (shortcut: WP:WWMPD). Among other things, this page explains how to find out why an article was deleted. If an article was deleted as a result of a proposed deletion, any administrator will usually restore it upon reasonable request. Follow the link at WP:WWMPD to post such a request.
A second option is to try to persuade the admin who made the deletion that it was in error. This option is worth trying only for CSD deletions, since prods can be reversed on request, and AfDs won't be reversed just because you ask nicely. Before you make such a request, do your homework—does the CSD deletion really seem unreasonable? Don't, for example, argue that the deletion was wrong because the article could have been fixed. CSDs are based on what was actually in the article, not the article's potential.
Another option is simply to start over. If the article was short, you've really not lost much if it was deleted. (You might even find a copy at Google—click the Cached link rather than the main link.) Just be sure that you start the article in your own user space, and don't move it to mainspace (where all regular articles are) until you're sure it can survive on its own. CSD criteriom G4 allows the speedy deletion of a "substantially identical" copy of any article deleted via AfD, particularly where the problems identified in the AfD discussion have not been addressed.
Sometimes you might acknowledge that the deletion was probably right, given the shape the article was in, but you think you could fix it. If so, it would help to have a copy of what was deleted. Check the page Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, and make your case to one of the admins (check their User contributions page first, to make sure they're still active). Ask that a copy of the article be put into your user space, as a subpage. If the article wasn't libelous, a massive copyright infringement, or an attack page, you're likely to succeed.
Finally, you can initiate a deletion review process, at the page Wikipedia:Deletion review (shortcut: WP:DRV). This page is for appeals to restore deleted pages (and also for appeals to delete pages which were closed as "keep'" in an AfD discussion). Before you do so, read the section, "What is this page for?", which explains that DRV is for cases where you believe the process was wrong, or where "significant new information has come to light." DRV is not a place to say that you didn't like the outcome, or a place to go in the hopes that a new discussion can occur that'll lead to a different result.
This help page needs to be updated. The reason given is: this manual may contain out of date information, examples or images. Please help update this help page to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (February 2020) |
One of Wikipedia's strengths is how easily editors create new Wikipedia articles—quick, efficient, no bureaucracy to get permission from. But some editors abuse the privilege, creating nonsense articles, attack articles, or promotional articles, for instance. Others just make mistakes because they don't understand Wikipedia's rules and purpose: They create an article about a non-notable topic, or a subject already covered by an article of a different name, or containing a definition (which should be a Wiktionary entry)—not an encyclopedic topic, for example.
In order to keep Wikipedia the useful encyclopedia that it is, articles with all these problems need to be improved or removed. For Wikipedia, the challenge is to have processes that delete inappropriate articles (more than a thousand a day) while keeping potentially good articles and avoiding offending well-intentioned editors. In this chapter, you'll learn the different ways to deal with problem articles (often without resorting to one of the three deletion processes). You'll also learn what recourse you and other editors have if you feel that an article was deleted inappropriately.
You can stumble across a problem article in a number of ways—doing a search, reviewing the User Contributions page of an editor, looking through Special:Newpages, or just clicking " Random article" to see what you see. When your first reaction is, "You're kidding!" or "I can't believe this is a Wikipedia article," your second reaction should be to analyze the article, systematically. There may be grounds for a quick deletion, or you may have to do some further research.
Here's a systematic approach to dealing with an article that you think may not belong in Wikipedia. Ask yourself the following questions in order:
At Wikipedia, notability (see the section about notability) is an important criterion for creating a new article. Since Wikipedia contains no original research, notability is determined by coverage of the topic in upstanding, independent sources, like books, newspapers, and sometimes Web sites. (For full details, check out the guideline Wikipedia:Notability; shortcut: WP:N.)
At its heart, deleting an article—other than by speedy deletion—is the Wikipedia community's way of saying that reliable sources of information simply don't exist out there in the world to make the article lengthy enough to stand on its own. Of course, it's impossible for you, or other editors, individually or collectively, to know if that's really true. You simply have to make your best guess, because it's impossible to prove something's non-existence.
Consider, for example, an article about a high school teacher, describing her classroom manner, the names of her pets, and how much her students like her. Is that ever going to be acceptable as an article? Is it likely that a number of newspaper articles have been solely about this teacher? While it's possible (if, say, the article's about the National Teacher of the Year), it's also unlikely. If a quick search turns up nothing, then the article should be tossed.
Compare, by contrast, an article about a 19th-century Portuguese poet. If the article makes no claims about notability (says nothing about "famous", or "well-known", then it's a candidate for speedy deletion. But you're probably not an expert on 19th century poets, of any nationality, so for you it's probably a sheer guess as to whether you're looking at a vanity—someone's great-great-great-grandfather—or someone once famous who's faded into obscurity, but whose life and accomplishments are well-documented in books published more than a hundred years ago.
You have three options when faced with a problematical article that you decide you don't want to nominate for a speedy deletion until you evaluate notability:
The hardest articles to fix are massive copyright violations, when you believe there's an article in there somewhere, one that Wikipedia doesn't have. You need to trim these to the bone—keep in only the verifiable facts. When the text is lengthy, you need to remove most of it, because minor rewording isn't going to cure the problem.
If you trim the article to the most important facts (facts can't be copyrighted), then the legal liability issue goes away. (Yes, older versions of the page are still available, but search engines ignore them, as do sites that take large amounts of Wikipedia and reuse it.) Also, you can draw on the text in the older version as you look for acceptable sources, without keeping it in the current version.
If you're not going to fix the article, you need to delete the information that's a copyright violation, and put a template on the top of the page about the problem. (See the "Instructions" section of the page Wikipedia:Copyright problems, shortcut WP:CP.) If you can't find a salvageable article—the topic is non-notable—then recommend the article for speedy deletion to get rid of the article immediately ( the section about Speedy Deletion). (Using both may seem like overkill, but copyright violations are dangerous to Wikipedia, and need to be dealt with promptly.)
If you find a problem with an article, consider some alternatives that might make the author of the article feel better, while protecting the quality of Wikipedia. These alternatives also have the advantage of not requiring an administrator's help:
Only administrators can delete articles outright. Your job is to ask for deletion using one of three methods:
Each of the three methods follows a different procedure, discussed next.
The factual accuracy of this help page may be compromised due to out-of-date information. The reason given is: Schools don't qualify for A7. Please help update this help page to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. |
Speedy deletions are based on specific criteria, listed in the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (shortcut: WP:CSD). (See Figure 19-2.)
If you want to propose a speedy deletion for an article, you need to cite a specific criteria found on this page, either from the "G" (general) series (which applies to all types of pages, not just articles), or the "A" (article) series. For example, criteria G2 applies to test page (pages created by a new editor, just exploring possibilities).
You use the criteria to determine the template to post on the article; once you've done that, an admin shows up fairly quickly, reviews your nomination for deletion, and decides whether to remove the template (as an error) or accept it and delete the article. If you've made a particularly egregious error in placing the template on the page, you'll also probably get a note to that effect from the admin.
Take, for example, an article called Timberwilde Elementary School. The first step in any speedy deletion is to figure out whether the article in fact meets any specific Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD). The entire article under consideration in this example reads, "Timberwilde Elementary School, Built In 1980, Is A School In The Texas District Northside Independent School District." That's better than the original posting, which read, in its entirety, "Timberwilde Elementary School Is The School Of Awesomeness! It Has A Graet Varitey Of Students Teachers And Staff! Visit Us At NISD.NET/TIMBERWILDE Click On Campus Webpage."
This article looks like it fits CSD number A7, "No indication of importance/significance." But before you pull the trigger, you should check five other things:
So, from the review, it seems fair to say that this article looks like an A7.
Once you've completed your initial review and found a criterion for deletion that fits, you can turn to the second step: actually nominating the article for deletion. Here's the process:
1. Further down the CSD page, in the "Deletion templates" section, look for the templates that match the specific criteria you've found.
2. When the specific templates for a criterion don't fit the situation exactly, use a general criterion.
3. Edit the article page, adding the template at the top of the edit box.
4. Add an edit summary, being sure to mention both "speedy delete" and the specific CSD (in this case, "A7"). Preview the page, and then press 'Publish changes'.
5. Post a notice on the user talk page of the editor who created the article.
Once you complete these steps, you're done for now. Check back in a day or so. What you do next depends on what's happened to the article.
Proposed deletion (shortcut: WP:PROD) is a way to nominate an article for deletion, used when you think the deletion won't be controversial. If the deletion meets the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion ( the section about speedy deletion), then use that. But often you can't; for example, when an article contains a bit of reasonable content, or indicates that the topic is notable.
Nominating an article as a proposed deletion starts a 7-day clock. If no other editor objects, then an administrator shows up after 7 days, reviews the nomination, and, if it looks okay, deletes the article.
As convenient as the proposed deletion process it, you can't use it on the article if any of the following are true:
You can check for these three situations by looking at the article history. Normally it's not very long; if it is, you should rethink the prod (consider an AfD instead).
If you can't do a proposed deletion because of one of these three circumstances, your choices are to drop the matter or use the AfD process ( the section about Articles for Deletion) to nominate the article for deletion.
Take as an example the article SQL-I. SQL-I, the article says, is a programming language, "a tool anyone with basic knowledge of SQL syntax can learn in one day." It "provides system administrators, advanced users and independent developers the option to write their own plug-ins." You could argue that this article's a candidate for speedy deletion, either as an A7 (no claim to notability) or a G11 (blatant advertising). But there's a bit of meat to the article (the total text is about three times what's quoted here), and a prod is just as efficient as a CSD (it just takes longer), so you decide to do a prod instead.
When you're considering a proposed deletion, first you appropriately research the article. Researching is critical because an incorrect prod is worse than an incorrect CSD. Articles that meet the CSD usually don't contain much useful material, so if the deletion's in error, very little is lost. With a prod, there's normally more information in the article—more of a potential foundation for other editors—as in this case. So if it's deleted by mistake, more is lost.
Since SQL-I is a current software product, a Google or Yahoo search seems reasonable. In Google, searching for both the product name and the company that sells it, and restricting results to English, yields a total of seven results, none of which are of citable quality. Apparently, SQL-I is not notable.
Next, you want to look at the same four other things that you do for potential CSDs:
Once you've completed the initial review, move on to the second step: actually nominating the article for deletion. Here's the process:
1. Edit the article, placing the {{ subst:prod|reason}} template at the top, and then change the word "reason" to explain your rationale.
2. Add an edit summary, being sure to mention proposed delete.
3. Preview the page, and then hit 'Publish changes'.
concern=
parameter, so the template looks like this: {{
subst:prod|concern=Give your reason, which can include an equal sign}}.4. Post a notice on the user talk page of the editor who created the article, and anyone else who was a major contributor.
After you're done, check back every day or two. What you do next depends on what other editors do:
When you nominate an article for deletion in the AfD process, you must have a good reason. You're asking other editors to spend their time reviewing the article and commenting on the reasons given for the nomination, so don't waste their time. The CSD and proposed deletion processes are preferable, but they don't apply to some articles. Before initiating AfD, explore alternatives to deletion ( the section about alternatives to deletion). AfD is a last resort, when an article is unsalvageable and there are no alternatives. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion ( WP:AFD) lists measures you should consider first, like improving the article or making it a redirect (Figure 19-8).
When you nominate an article for deletion using the AfD process, you get to a point in the process where you have to give a reason. Don't make the mistake of reaching that point only to realize that you don't actually have a good reason. Or worse, don't make the mistake of completing the AfD process and discovering, when discussion starts, that what you thought was an acceptable reason was not.
Reading two policies will keep you from making such mistakes:
You need just a couple of minutes to read each of these. Once you read them, you're well-prepared to do an AfD nomination if that is, in fact, appropriate. You may have to follow some links and do some more reading. If so, what you read will be useful in your normal editing work as well, so consider it an investment, not drudgery.
The following steps walk you through the AfD process using the article Salmon fishing with the Dry Fly as an example. An editor had proposed the article for deletion (with a "prod" template, as discussed above). The editor who created the article removed that template, without any explanation.
This example assumes that you've already tried, unproductively, to discuss with the author the unacceptability of such a "how-to" article. You also did a redirect to the article Fly fishing, but it was reverted, leaving no choice but AfD.
1. Review the "Reasons for deletion" section of Wikipedia:Deletion policy (shortcut: WP:DEL) and prepare your argument as to why the article should be reviewed.
2. Open the article for editing. Add the template {{ subst:afd1}} at the top of the text in the edit box, and add the recommended text to your edit summary, changing "PageName" to the article's actual name.
3. In the AfD message box at the top of the article, click the "Preloaded debate" link (it's in small print, in the second grouping of text).
4. Do the first two steps—select the article's category, and add a reason to the standard template.
5. Copy (Ctrl-C or ⌘-C) the text listed in step 3 of the instructions (in this case, {{ subst:afd3|pg=Salmon fishing with the Dry Fly}}). Then open a new tab or window for the link "today's AfD log", which is also in step 3 of the instructions.
6. Flip back to the window where you were editing the discussion page, as shown in Figure 19-11 (this is the page with the five steps on it). Copy the text in step 4 to the clipboard. Now flip back to the log page (Figure 19-12), paste this text into the edit summary, and then publish the page.
7. Tab to the edit summary box. The box should already be filled in. If not, paste (again) the text from step 4 into that edit summary box. Turn on the "Watch this page" checkbox, if you use your watchlist regularly, since you'll want to watch the discussion. Do a preview, and then publish the page.
8. Go back to the log page and check that it shows your discussion page (it should be at the top). If it does, close it.
9. Go to the discussion page, and then click the link to the article. Copy the small print at the very bottom of the message box (in this case, {{ subst:Afd notice|Salmon fishing with the Dry Fly}} ~~~~ and paste it to a new section on that editor's user talk page.
You're done—except for the actual discussion, of course.
An AfD discussion normally runs for seven days, though it can be closed earlier if the discussion is clearly, massively one-sided. (The page Wikipedia:Snowball clause, shortcut: WP:SNOW, explains the concept of not letting a process continue when continuing makes no sense. The guideline Wikipedia:Speedy keep, shortcut WP:SK, explains when and how to close an AfD as a "keep" before the full seven days are up.)
If you've nominated an article for deletion, be judicious in adding comments to the discussion. You should have made your point when you gave the reason for the nomination. If you keep repeating that, or variants of it, or argumentatively question the reasoning of editors who want to keep the article, you'll lose credibility.
As nominator, think of your role as a facilitator. You've created the agenda, now let the Wikipedia community decide. If you have additional information to offer in response to a posting of another edit, then provide it. Otherwise, let the conversation flow. It's not a win or lose competition; it's a discussion about making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.
If you want to participate in AfD discussions you didn't start, here are some suggestions:
Some Wikipedians think the best way to handle unsourced or poorly sourced articles is to delete them on sight. Ideally, there should be rigorous standards for new articles, to raise the average quality of Wikipedia articles. Conversely, some Wikipedians think Wikipedia ought to have an article on almost any topic, and that a start to an article, no matter how poor, is better than nothing.
Those are extreme positions—almost caricatures. In fact, there's broad agreement in Wikipedia about whether to delete or keep most articles. Most debates are mostly about inherent notability (should all high schools automatically have an article?) rather than about standards that apply to all articles. Still, editors differ, and occasionally name calling erupts—"Inclusionist!" "Deletionist!" Avoid getting caught up in unproductive bickering.
Some editors do care a lot about what they see as excess deletions. If you're interested, take a look at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (shortcut: WP:ARS) and Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling (shortcut: WP:WPPDP).
Someday, an article you created or worked on may be deleted, and you won't know or won't agree with the reason for the deletion. If so, remember that very little is actually deleted in Wikipedia—it's still visible to admins, just not to regular readers. And Wikipedia's processes are not infallible, so you have some options.
First, read Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? (shortcut: WP:WWMPD). Among other things, this page explains how to find out why an article was deleted. If an article was deleted as a result of a proposed deletion, any administrator will usually restore it upon reasonable request. Follow the link at WP:WWMPD to post such a request.
A second option is to try to persuade the admin who made the deletion that it was in error. This option is worth trying only for CSD deletions, since prods can be reversed on request, and AfDs won't be reversed just because you ask nicely. Before you make such a request, do your homework—does the CSD deletion really seem unreasonable? Don't, for example, argue that the deletion was wrong because the article could have been fixed. CSDs are based on what was actually in the article, not the article's potential.
Another option is simply to start over. If the article was short, you've really not lost much if it was deleted. (You might even find a copy at Google—click the Cached link rather than the main link.) Just be sure that you start the article in your own user space, and don't move it to mainspace (where all regular articles are) until you're sure it can survive on its own. CSD criteriom G4 allows the speedy deletion of a "substantially identical" copy of any article deleted via AfD, particularly where the problems identified in the AfD discussion have not been addressed.
Sometimes you might acknowledge that the deletion was probably right, given the shape the article was in, but you think you could fix it. If so, it would help to have a copy of what was deleted. Check the page Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, and make your case to one of the admins (check their User contributions page first, to make sure they're still active). Ask that a copy of the article be put into your user space, as a subpage. If the article wasn't libelous, a massive copyright infringement, or an attack page, you're likely to succeed.
Finally, you can initiate a deletion review process, at the page Wikipedia:Deletion review (shortcut: WP:DRV). This page is for appeals to restore deleted pages (and also for appeals to delete pages which were closed as "keep'" in an AfD discussion). Before you do so, read the section, "What is this page for?", which explains that DRV is for cases where you believe the process was wrong, or where "significant new information has come to light." DRV is not a place to say that you didn't like the outcome, or a place to go in the hopes that a new discussion can occur that'll lead to a different result.