User:Atsme/MR

Merge-Redirect (MR)
 * What this page represtents: Various copy-paste policies/guidelines for easy reference, and for comparison purposes.
 * Purpose: To clarify ambiguities in the AfD closure process when the result is merge or redirect.

WP:DP
This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, many pages are deleted each day through the processes outlined below.

Reasons for deletion
Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
 * 1) Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
 * 2) Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
 * 3) Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
 * 4) Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * 5) Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
 * 6) Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * 7) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * 8) Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
 * 9) Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * 10) Redundant or otherwise useless templates
 * 11) Categories representing overcategorization
 * 12) Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy
 * 13) Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
 * 14) Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

Alternatives to deletion
Per WP:DP - while listed under policy, there are references linking to guidelines such as Redirects that replace previous articles.

Editing and discussion
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles.

Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.

Merging
Policy shortcut WP:ATD-M

Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists. For example, information about family members of a celebrity who are not otherwise notable is generally included in, or merged into, the article on that celebrity. Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear.

If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand.

Note that an outcome of "merge and delete" may potentially cause licensing problems if attribution for the merged content is lost in the process. The essay Wikipedia:Merge and delete discusses this, whereas the essay Wikipedia:Delete or merge discusses a different case that causes no such licensing problems.

Redirection
Policy shortcut WP:ATD-R

See also: Wikipedia:Redirect § Redirects that replace previous articles

Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly blank the page and redirect it to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect.

Redirects that replace previous articles
This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been formally deleted. If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Articles for deletion or listing on Requests for comments for further input.

To make it easier for other editors to find the history of the blanked article, it's good practice to add a short notice at the talk page of the target article, even if no content has been merged there. This is specially useful if the blanked article had few visits and infrequent edits. If the redirect is replacing an article that had been deleted by an administrator, this notice is the only way for editors to know that a previous version of the article existed at all.

Content of the replaced article
If the topic of the article can be reasonably thought to describe a notable topic, mark the redirect with the template Redirect with possibilities to indicate that it could be expanded in the future. You may also consider turning the article into a stub by removing all unsourced content and keeping the valid references, instead of blanking it.

Note that certain forms of blanking are not allowed. Illegitimate blanking of valid content without reason is considered vandalism, a form of disruptive editing. Other forms of blank-and-redirect, although not vandalism, are still undesirable. If you want to rename the article by cutting and pasting text to a new article with a different title, you should instead move the page with the Move option. If you want to keep some content from the blanked article and add it to the target article, you should follow the instructions at. Both processes will create proper links to the edit history, which is required by the Wikipedia license for legal reasons to preserve attribution of content to its authors.

WP:SPINOFF
(Main article: WP:CFORK) Content guideline. Article spinoffs: "Summary style" meta-articles and summary sections


 * 1) Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem
 * 2) Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections

In both cases, summary sections are used in the main article to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s).

Sometimes, when an article gets too long (see Article size), an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle, and the handling of that subject in the main article is condensed into a brief summary section. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new subarticle is sometimes called a "spinoff" from the main article ("spinout" leads elsewhere); Summary style explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a forbidden POV fork. However, the moved material must leave a WP:NPOV summary section of that material behind. If it doesn't, then the "spinning off" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others and ignore one viewpoint.

A common situation is when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from reliable sources representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give undue weight to the incident, so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate subarticle and just leave a summary section in the main article.

Here are some examples:


 * Evolution as fact and theory is a subarticle of Evolution
 * Creation–evolution controversy is a subarticle of Creationism
 * O. J. Simpson murder case and O. J. Simpson robbery case are subarticles of O. J. Simpson
 * Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal is a subarticle of Jimmy Saville
 * Roman Polanski sexual abuse case is a subarticle of Roman Polanski
 * Trial of Michael Jackson and 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson are subarticles of Michael Jackson.
 * Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations is a subarticle of Bill Cosby

Summary style meta-articles, with subarticles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the subarticles, and the summary sections, conform to WP:NPOV. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject in different articles, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

WP:Merge
This is an information page. It describes the editing community's established practice on some aspect or aspects of Wikipedia's norms and customs. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Controversial mergers
More than 99% of merger proposals are handled directly by the editors involved in those articles. But if you believe that your proposal will be controversial, then please follow the directions at Proposed mergers to request extra attention from uninvolved editors.

Merger as a result of a deletion discussion
While mergers are generally not proposed from the onset of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions (also see Deletion policy), it is not uncommon for editors, in an effort to mediate and/or compromise, to suggest that the article(s) nominated for deletion instead be merged to a parent article. If there is a rough consensus for a merger at the end of a deletion discussion, the following template is placed at the top of the nominated article:

Similarly, the following template is placed on the destination article's talk page:

This informs users involved in those pages that content is to be merged as a result of a deletion discussion. It is the involved editors' job, not the closing administrators' job, to perform the merger. Proceed in the manner described above.

Merger proposed after a deletion discussion
Merge is one of the outcome options that can be considered at a deletion discussion. See WP:ATD-M. Deletion discussions generally reach a broader spectrum of editors than a particular talk page. As such, talk page merger requests proposed after a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion, where the merge outcome option was raised by someone participating in the deletion discussion, should identify and overcome the reason(s) listed in the deletion discussion when requesting an action different from the outcome of that deletion discussion. This does not apply if a merge outcome option was not raised by someone participating in the deletion discussion. Alternatives to talk page merger requests that follow a deletion discussion include formally relisting the page for deletion through an appropriate deletion discussion venue or posting a request at Deletion review.

Determining consensus
Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

Levels of consensus
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay.

Wikipedia has a standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines. Their stability and consistency are important to the community. Accordingly, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Bold changes are rarely welcome on policy pages. Improvements to policy are best made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.

No consensus
WP:NOCON - This section summarizes existing policies and guidelines. It does not make any new rules. If this page and the more specific policy or guideline disagree, then this one should be changed to conform with the more specific page.

Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context:


 * In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept.
 * In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.
 * When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.
 * In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
 * In article title discussions (WP:TITLECHANGES), the policy gives a default action for a no-consensus result:
 * "If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."

WP:DOM
This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It is intended to make up for a deficiency considered overly detailed for inclusion in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Whereas many articles can be improved through ordinary editing, deleting an article is typically appropriate where the article cannot meet the general notability guideline, where the bulk of the article violates What Wikipedia is not, or where the article is a content fork that attempts to cover the same subject as an existing article. An editor who is willing to delete or merge is expressing a good faith belief that Wikipedia policies and guidelines provide a sound basis for deleting the article, but that they would also support or consent to a merge if it would produce a consensus.

WP:MAD
This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Redirect pages. It is intended to make up for a deficiency considered overly detailed for inclusion in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Document License (GFDL), which Wikipedia uses to license all of its content, both have provisions requiring that the attribution history of an article be preserved.