User:Seraphimblade/Deletion FAQ

This page is intended to answer frequently-asked questions regarding deletion. If the deletion tag is pink, you are advised to go place the hangon tag on the article if you intend to dispute the deletion.

A short note-if your intent here is just to vandalize and disrupt the work of others, or to post spam or advertisements, you are advised to either reconsider that decision and make positive contributions, or to just go away. If you do neither, one of our fine administrators will shortly be along to assist you in going away. It's not nearly as funny as you think it is, and if you have a point to make, you won't get it across that way. On the other hand, if you would like to contribute positively but have a question about an article that's marked for deletion or deleted, read on.

Why did you delete my image or other media file?
You'll see a reason in the article's deletion log. Generally, it will be one of I1 through I9. Here's a quick breakdown on what each one means.

I1
The image or media file is redundant (identical) to another image or media file. If one image/media file is of lower quality than the other, the lower-quality file will be deleted. If both files are of identical quality, generally the one which was uploaded first will be retained and all other copies deleted.

I2
The image or file was corrupt and did not work properly or at all.

I3
The image was uploaded under an improper license, such as "permission for Wikipedia only", "non-commercial use only", or "no modifications", and no rationale is provided for why the image fits the criteria for acceptable fair use. Any license which does not permit reuse, including commercial reuse, and allow modification is not a free license. Use of such images is subject to the same restrictions on all fair-use images.

I4
The uploader of the file failed to specify the copyright status of the file, and/or failed to state where it came from. Images without source and copyright information are speedily deleted seven days after being tagged as lacking such information.

I5
The image or media file is not released under a free license, and is not in use in any articles. (This means articles, not user pages, templates, etc. It's inappropriate to use non-free images in any namespace but main anyway!) Fair-use images which have been uploaded for use in a shortly-forthcoming article should have a note placed on the image's discussion page to this effect, including a time frame in which the image is expected to be in use.

I6
The image is not released under a free license and is used in articles, but no detailed fair-use rationale is provided as to why the image meets the fair use guidelines. '''N.B.: The standard boilerplate fair-use tags (such as, for example, the albumcover template) are not a fair-use rationale and using them will not prevent the deletion of the image! You must provide a detailed rationale as to why the image meets the fair use requirements for every article it is used in.'''

I7
The image is claimed to be usable under fair use, and a rationale is provided, but the claim is invalid. (For example, a fair-use photograph of a living person is uploaded and used in that person's article. Normally this would fail fair-use criterion #1, since the person is alive, it is generally possible to replace the fair-use photo by taking a free-license one.) This also covers rationales which clearly don't actually apply to the media file in question (for example, a fair-use rationale for an album cover is given, but the image is a screenshot from a movie.)

I8
This is the only speedy deletion criterion which applies specifically to free images, all of the rest of the above apply only to fair-use images (or in the case of I1 and I2, all images). This is simply a "housekeeping" deletion, when a free image originally uploaded to Wikipedia is transferred as an identical copy to the Wikimedia Commons. An upload on Commons allows all Wikimedia projects in all languages to use the image, not just the English Wikipedia, so having free images on Commons is preferred. Commons will not under any circumstances accept non-free images, so fair-use images are never transferred there. Occasionally, uploaders of a free image to Wikipedia wish to request that a local copy be retained on Wikipedia even after the image is copied to Commons. If this is the case, simply place keep local on the image page to alert other editors and administrators to your wishes.

I9
The image is asserted to be free content, but is clearly a copy of an image from a website or other source which is not under a free license. This leads to immediate deletion as a potential copyright infringement.

If you are the copyright holder or a party authorized by the copyright holder to release the image under a free license, please see the guide to asserting copyright release for further instructions. Our OTRS team will guide you through the process. Before undertaking this process, you should realize that release of an image or file under a free license means that any person may use the file for any purpose, including commercial purposes and modification, without needing your permission. You may, however, require that the image be attributed as yours whenever it is reused, and/or that the image and any derived works remain under the same license you released it under.

Why did you delete my article?
There are many reasons for articles to be deleted. If you're here to speak to me, you've probably already found the page's deletion log. You'll see a reason in it. If the reason is a link to an articles for deletion discussion, it was decided by consensus in an AFD discussion to delete the article. If the reason contains something like "A7" or "G10", the article was speedily deleted. Finally, if you see the word "prod", the article was deleted by the proposed deletion process.

Speedy deletion
If the page is tagged for speedy deletion but not yet deleted, you can use the "Edit this page" button to see which of the following tags is placed on it. If the article has already been deleted, you may see reasons such as "A7" or "G11" in the deletion reasoning. To see what these mean, look at the rules for speedy deletion. (G11 would mean the general criteria, number 11, while A7 would indicate the article criteria, number 7). You may not remove speedy deletion notices from articles you created, this is considered vandalism, but you may add the hangon tag to let administrators know you intend to dispute the deletion.

A quick note on notability
If a subject passes the notability guidelines, but you've failed to indicate so, this may be fixable-you'll just have to show reliable sources that indicate the subject is notable. On the other hand, if the subject does not pass these guidelines, the answer to "What can I do to have this article in Wikipedia???" is "Absolutely nothing, an article about the subject doesn't belong here yet." Of course, if the subject later becomes notable, it'll have an article created eventually.

db-bio, A7
If this tag has been used, it means that the article is about a person, but does not show any indication that this person passes the biographical notability guidelines. If the person does pass these guidelines, add some assertion to the article (or its talk page) as to which one the person passes and how. You should reliably source these claims. Please note: Most people do not pass these guidelines. Also note that if the subject of the article is you, you are permitted to place a short biography of yourself on your user page. User page biographies are not subject to the notability rules (although they also are not intended as personal blogs or other such purposes).

db-band, A7
The same as db-bio, except that the article is about a band or musician, and you need to check if they pass the band notability guidelines. If the band does not pass these guidelines, it isn't a suitable subject for an article here, period. If it does, indicate how, and reliably source your assertion. Please note: Most bands do not pass these guidelines.

db-corp, A7
Same as above, but this time, the article is about a company, corporation, or product, and fails to assert how the corporate notability guidelines are met. If the company or product does meet them, indicate how and source it, if not, it's not a suitable subject for an article. Please note: Most companies do not pass these guidelines.

db-web, A7
The article is about a website, blog, or other web-related content, but does not assert why the subject would meet the website notability guidelines. If the website does pass these guidelines, please cite reliable sources to show how. If the website does not pass these guidelines, it is not suitable for an article. Please note: Most websites do not pass these guidelines.

db-group, A7
The article is about an organization or group of people, but does not show how that group is notable. If the group is notable, please cite reliable sources showing how the group is notable. Please note: Most groups and organizations do not pass these guidelines.

db-spam, G11
The article is clearly written to promote a company, product, organization, website, or really is intended to promote anything. Articles must be neutral in tone, blatantly promotional material will be deleted immediately. While the subject might be suitable for an article if it otherwise passes the notability guidelines, you may not place an ad or puff piece here-period. We strongly discourage editors from editing articles on subjects they have a direct interest in promoting, including articles on the editor him/herself, the editor's company, the editor's employee or employer, the editor's band, etc. Such edits should first be discussed with editors who do not have a conflict of interest.

db-blank, A1 or A3
The article consists only of a link or links to other websites, is totally blank, contains only a restatement of the article's title, or contains so little context that it's impossible to tell what the article is even about. This is generally fixable-just add enough context to the article so that it's clear what it's supposed to be about. However, the resulting article still must meet the criteria above.

db-nonsense, G1
The article has an obviously false or nonsensical subject (Unicorn invasion of New Jersey), or its content is unsalvageable nonsense. (However, anyone applying this tag should take care that the "nonsensical article title" isn't actually the name of a band or the like-who knows, there might be a band out there called "Unicorn invasion of New Jersey.") This takes many forms, including keyboard salad such as "ahorirehoiwh", or a thrown-together selection of words which mean nothing ("glass dog house bleh something".) Unless the tag was misapplied (for example, the earlier example of a band with a nonsensical name), there's nothing you can do-Wikipedia does not permit fictional or "joke" articles. (If you want to do that type of thing, have a look at Uncyclopedia.) If you just want to practice editing, you can use the sandbox for practice edits to your heart's content. If the main sandbox gets a bit busy for you, you may also use the practice sandbox in my userspace, or create your own in your own userspace.

db-vandal, G3
This means that the article is clearly and unambiguously an act of vandalism (such as consisting of nothing but profanities), or is a blatant and obvious hoax or false claim (such as "John Doe was the first man to visit Neptune and meet the Blargles there. His diplomacy with them started a 2000-year peace for Earth until the Borg invaded.")

db-attack, G10
The article was created to launch an attack against someone or something. Wikipedia has strict policies regarding personal attacks and placing negative information in the biography of a living person. We do allow accurate and well-sourced reporting about legitimate negative information on notable living people, but the person must be notable to start with (or notable because of the trouble (s)he is in), and the information absolutely, 100%, no exceptions, must be reliably sourced and verifiable. This is not the place to exercise your personal vendettas, to air your personal grievances, or to launch a smear campaign. It is also not the place to spread rumors which you have heard about from friends, blogs, or gossip sites or tabloids. These are not reliable sources.

db-copyvio, G12
The article is blatant copyright infringement, for example, it was cut-and-pasted from a copyrighted website. While short quotes from copyrighted sources are acceptable if sourced and attributed, articles which consist wholly or mainly of non-free copyrighted text will be deleted immediately. If you are the copyright holder to the copyrighted text and wish to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike License so that it may be used on Wikipedia, it is possible to do this. Please note, however, that if you choose to donate material in this way, this will allow other people to copy and modify the copyrighted text without any further permission from you, including on websites other than Wikipedia and for offline use, including for commercial purposes, and you will not have any ability to stop them from doing so before or after the fact, nor will you be entitled to any royalties or other compensation from such use. Permission for use on Wikipedia alone or reuse permission for noncommercial purposes only is not sufficient, as Wikipedia is intended to be a free-content website. Also, please note that simply asserting that you are the copyright holder or have permission to make such a release is not sufficient, as anyone may make such a claim. There are, however, ways in which it can be verified that this is indeed true. Please see our instructions for donating copyrighted works for specifics on how to confirm that you are the copyright holder and wish to donate the material. Finally, please bear in mind that we will not accept promotional material regardless of its copyright licensing.

If you are the copyright holder to copyrighted work, and see that it has been copied to Wikipedia without your permission, please contact an administrator for assistance immediately. We do not tolerate copyright violations and will remove them. You may also place the template on the page(s) containing the infringing material, replacing "Where it's from" after the pipe with an explanation of where the material was copied from, and a URL if the material is available online. This will flag the page for administrator attention and deletion of the infringing material. You may also wish to blank the page (or portions thereof containing the infringing material) with the edit summary "Removed material which infringes copyright".

Proposed deletion notices
A proposed deletion notice indicates that the article is nominated for deletion through the proposed deletion process. Anyone (including the article's author) may dispute a proposed deletion by removing the prod tag, and any such dispute will prevent deletion through the prod process. However, such articles may still be nominated for the articles for deletion process, where community consensus will be formed as to whether the article should remain. Before going ahead and removing that prod tag, you are encouraged (though not required by any means!) to review the following reasons why prod tags are commonly placed.

Notability
If an article even asserts something that might make the subject notable, it is not eligible for speedy deletion. However, if such an assertion is not sourced, editors may well question this assertion, and propose the article for deletion. If you can show that the subject is notable, add sources to the article. Adding source material is the absolute best way to prevent challenges to the article or its content, but the sources must be reliable-for example, blogs and web forums are not generally reliable sources, nor are self-published websites or books. Trivial mentions also do not establish notability-for example, if a newspaper mentioned a subject "in passing" in a story which is actually about something else.

The article is of questionable accuracy
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Again, you will need to cite reliable sources to show that the claims are indeed true, or at least have verifiably been made and have some credibility and notability. An unproven claim should be treated as a claim, not as factual-for example, "According to X, Y is the reason that..." not "Y is the reason that...". Even if this is done, the claim must have established notability.

The article constitutes original research
Wikipedia is not a place to publish a novel idea or claim, or to insert one's own interpretation of something. If the article can be fixed to be neutrally written based on what has already been published in reliable sources, it may be acceptable, else it is not.

The article is a dictionary definition
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, our sister project, Wiktionary, is! If you would like to assist in defining dictionary words, they would love to see you!

The article is a howto manual, recipe, or the like
Wikipedia is not a howto guide. However, our sister project Wikibooks is more oriented toward those who wish to participate in writing such things. If you want to write in-depth textbooks and manuals, they would love to see you!

Articles for Deletion
If an article has been sent to Articles for Deletion, the rationale for why it has been sent will be summarized by the nominator on the AfD page. You are welcome to comment and participate at the AfD discussion. However, please note that rationales such as "I like it," "I worked hard on it", or "This information is true!" are not valid reasons to keep the article. Rather, it must be shown that the article's subject is notable, and that enough verifiable information exists in reliable sources to have a good article on the subject. You may not, under any circumstances, remove the AfD header from the article, and this is considered vandalism. Only the administrator closing the AfD discussion may do so. After the community has discussed the article for five days (sometimes a little longer), an administrator will look at whether there is a consensus to keep or delete the article. (This is done through evaluating the discussion, not a "majority vote" or even a "supermajority vote". AfD is not a vote.) If there is no consensus to do either one, the decision will default to keeping, and a "no consensus" close will be the result.

The quickest way to get an AfD to definitively swing toward "keep" is to find reliable source material written by someone independent and unaffiliated with the article's subject. If you can't do that whatsoever, please consider that the AfD nominator may well be right. All article subjects must be the subject of non-trivial, independent source material. If that doesn't exist on the subject, it probably really isn't a suitable topic right now.

What if I still disagree? Is there an appeals process?
Absolutely! Here are some options you have if you believe that a deletion was improper. (If you are having difficulty finding or reading the deletion log to find out who the deleting administrator was, please feel free to ask me and I will look.)

Speak to the administrator who performed the deletion
If you're here to talk to me, that probably was me. However, whoever it is, you're much more likely to get a positive response if you remain civil. In most cases, if you have found additional source material or otherwise can improve the article to address the problem that led to deletion, the old article text can be given to you to work with in your userspace. Bringing us to...

Request userfication of the deleted article
In this case, you are requesting that the text of the deleted article be placed into a subpage in your userspace for you to rework into a suitable article. While administrators are not obliged to do this in any way, many will do so, if the request is reasonable and there is some chance that a suitable article is possible. You may wish to request feedback through articles for creation to get another editor's thoughts on whether the article is indeed ready for prime time. (If the article was deleted as a copyright violation (copyvio) or attack piece, the text generally may not under any circumstances be restored, to userspace or otherwise.) I will generally userfy a deleted article for you upon a reasonable request, but keep in mind this should be a temporary situation. For example, if you would like to copy the information to a personal website or another wiki, have the userfied content deleted once you're done (just place db-userreq on the userfied article, an admin will be along to delete it.) On the other hand, if you're working on fixing it, do take the time you need, but don't forget and let it sit.

Write a new article which corrects the problem
If (and only if) the subject is suitable for inclusion per the notability, verifiability, and no original research guidelines and policies, it may be best to write a new article which addresses the problem. For example, an article on a website that passes WP:WEB but consisted only of a link to that site may have been deleted as a "blank" article. In that case, rewrite the article with some information contained in it as to why the site is notable. If an article was deleted as advertising, rewrite it in a neutral tone. However, if the subject is unsuitable for inclusion, it is unsuitable at this time, period, and resubmitting such articles tends to be considered disruptive behavior. Good-faith recreations which attempt to address the problems that led to deletion and assert the subject's notability are not.

Request a deletion review
If you believe that the administrator who deleted an article made an error or closed an AfD discussion as "delete" against a consensus not to delete, you may request a deletion review. Deletion review is not AfD, round 2, and if all you plan to do is make the same arguments that you did at AfD, you are not likely to have much luck. It is to either have the community review if an administrator may have made an error in his or her decision to delete or interpretation of the deletion discussion, or to see if an article would be suitable for recreation given new information or increased notability of the subject.

Special case: Articles deleted by proposed deletion
Articles deleted through the prod process will generally be undeleted without debate upon a reasonable request. You may speak to an administrator, or file an undeletion request at requests for undeletion, to have the article undeleted. However, the article is likely to be placed on AfD by the undeleting admin, as a procedural motion to gain the community's input into whether the article should indeed be deleted.

What not to do
Here are some very good ways to get people irritated and upset at you, and to end up blocked.

Throw a temper tantrum
While it may upset you that your article was deleted, remember-this action is entirely reversible. No one is "out to get you" because your article was deleted. Swearing, making wild accusations, namecalling, and engaging in personal attacks is not the way to attract help.

Repost the exact content which was deleted
This is a waste of the community's time and is considered disruptive. If you disagree with the decision to delete, take it to deletion review.

Engage in conspiracy theory
No one is out to get you, there is not a conspiracy here specifically made to suppress the information you wish to write about, and the black helicopter over your house is just a news chopper. Yes, all six of them. A lot of articles are deleted. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is an encyclopedia consisting of verifiable and notable subjects. It is, moreover, not a place to get the truth out. It is a collection of already well-established and well-sourced facts.

Recruit people from a forum, blog, or something similar, to come and skew the weight of a discussion
We really do generally know when this is happening. If that will do anything, it will tend to prejudice opinion against you. Generally, the hordes of "recruits" will be ignored. Deletion discussions are not a vote, they are a discussion, based upon strength of argument, so numerical superiority is not going to help you anyway. In a similar vein, do not create or use sock puppet accounts to "support your position". We generally recognize that too, and it leads to very bad results, generally a long term block or even ban from editing.