Wikipedia:VfD criteria templates


 * See Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Deletion criterion boxes for the discussion about this page.

Below is a list of the current accepted criteria for an article to be listed on Votes for Deletion as listed at the Deletion policy and What Wikipedia is not. Each has a template that can be added to corresponding VfD nominations.

They are divided by colour. Those with a beige background are ones that if the assertion is proved they can be speedy deleted before their VfD time is expired. Ones with a violet background could be transwikied to another Wikiproject before being deleted. Green ones are standard. The ones with a white background are for VfD nominations that do not meet any current criteria listed in the deletion policy, but which some believe are acceptable reasons to delete an article.

Please note that using these boxes is not currently a Wikipedia policy. Some discussion has started regarding the pros and cons of the boxes. Please add your argumentation for or against to this page's talk page.

Original research
 The nominator alleges that this page violates the no original research section of the deletion policy. :Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration). A Wikipedia entry is a report, not an essay.

Inappropriate user pages
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the inappropriate user page section of the deletion policy. :The Wikipedia community is fairly tolerant when it comes to user pages and offers fairly wide latitude community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic," may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia.

Vanity pages
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the no vanity pages section of the deletion policy. :Vanity page is an amorphous construct and it's difficult to develop explicit criteria for diagnosis, normally the intent of the writer can be inferred from the tone of the article.

Usually, vanity authors write about themselves, their significant others, or their high schools. Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project.

Advertising or self-promotion
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the no advertising or self-promotion section of the deletion policy. : Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. A differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities, however. See also: Spam.

Idiosyncratic non-topic
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the no idiosyncratic non-topics section of the deletion policy. :

Inherently POV
 The nominator asserts that the nominated article is inherently POV. : Articles should not be deleted just for being POV rather they should be marked with an template. An article only merits deletion if its title is inherently POV.

Discussion forum
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a discussion forum policy. : Wikipedia is not is not a discussion forum, or Everything2 node. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles.

Critical reviews
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a home for critical reviews policy. : Wikipedia is not is not a place for critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations.

Personal essays
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a home for personal essays policy. : Wikipedia is not is not a place for personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.

Mere collections of external links
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links policy. : Wikipedia is not is not a mere collections of external links. Of course, there's nothing wrong with adding both lists of content-relevant links and on-line references you used in writing an article.

Mere collections of internal links
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a mere collection of internal links policy. : Wikipedia is not is not a mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for topical lists to assist with the organization of articles.

Lists of Frequently Asked Questions
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a home for FAQs policy. : Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a home for lists of loosely associated topics. : Wikipedia is not is not a home for mere lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.

Travel guides
 The nominator asserts that this page violates the Wikipedia is not a travel guide policy. : Wikipedia is not is not a home for travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Elysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.

Memorials
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a home for memorials policy. : Wikipedia is not is not a home for memorials. It's always sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honour them. Of course, you are free to write articles about notable people who have died.

News reports
 The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a home for news reports policy. : Wikipedia is not is not a home news reports. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news. See current events for examples.

Genealogical entries
<div style="float: right; width: 13em; padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 0 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #e3ffe3; font-size: 91%; text-align: center;"> The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a home for genealogical entries policy. : Biography articles should only be for people with enough notoriety or achievement to have information one them be verifiable. See Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project.

Directories
<div style="float: right; width: 13em; padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 0 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #e3ffe3; font-size: 91%; text-align: center;"> The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a home for directories policy. : Wikipedia is not is not a home for directory entries or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.

Unverifiable
<div style="float: right; width: 13em; padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 0 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #e3ffe3; font-size: 91%; text-align: center;"> The nominator asserts that the information in this article is unverfiable : Information that is impossible to verify is also impossible to check for accuracy and neutrality.

Patent nonsense
<div style="float: right; width: 13em; padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 0 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: beige; font-size: 91%; text-align: center;"> The nominator believes that this page might fall under the no patent nonsense section of the deletion policy. : Patent nonsense includes articles that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head nor tail of it. If an article is proved to be patent nonsense it is eligible for speedy deletion.

Vandalism
<div style="float: right; width: 13em; padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 0 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: beige; font-size: 91%; text-align: center;"> The nominator asserts that this page falls under the no vandalism section of the deletion policy. : Vandalism is a bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. If an article is proved to be vandalism it is eligible for speedy deletion.

Recreation of a deleted page
<div style="float: right; width: 13em; padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 0 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: beige; font-size: 91%; text-align: center;"> The nominator believes that this page might fall under the no recreating deleted pages part of the deletion policy. : Once a page has been deleted through Votes for Deletion it should not be recreated without first going through Votes for Undeletion. If an article is proved to be a recreation of a deleted page it is eligible for speedy deletion.

Dictionary definitions
<div style="float: right; width: 13em; padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 0 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #ffe3ff; font-size: 91%; text-align: center;"> The nominator asserts that this page falls under the no dictionary definitions section of What Wikipedia is not. : Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. Of course, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic. If you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.

Collections of photographs or media files
<div style="float: right; width: 13em; padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 0 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #ffe3ff; font-size: 91%; text-align: center;"> The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a collection of photos or media files policy. : Wikipedia is not home for collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Images with missing articles or Public domain image resources.

Mere collections of source material
<div style="float: right; width: 13em; padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 0 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #ffe3ff; font-size: 91%; text-align: center;"> The nominator asserts that this page falls under the Wikipedia is not a home for primary sources policy. : Wikipedia is not home for public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources should go into Wikisource. There's nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Don't include copies of primary sources.

Non-notable bands
<div style="float: right; width: 13em; padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 0 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #fff; font-size: 91%; text-align: center;"> The nominator asserts that this page violates the unofficial notability and music guidelines. : WikiProject Music maintains guidelines requiring some notability for a band or other musician(s) to deserve an article in Wikipedia. These guidelines state that bands with no media presence or released albums tend to be deleted. These criteria have not yet become part of the deletion policy. Most articles on non-notable bands also qualify as Vanity articles, Unverifiable, or Self-promotion all of which are part of the deletion policy. Some people assert that they are therefore more widely accepted reasons for deletion. However, in the VfD pages, nominations with the sole reason of failing the guidelines mentioned above are relatively common, and tend to get deleted according to vote. This indicates that 'non-notable band' is at least somewhat accepted as a reason for deletion.