Contents

Wikipediadeletion PolicyEdit

Wikipediadeletion Policy sits at the intersection of openness and responsibility. It governs when content on the encyclopedia should be removed, and it provides an orderly path for contested removals. The aim is not to silence ideas but to keep the site reliable, focused, and useful to readers who want verifiable information. The framework rests on core ideas such as notability, reliable sourcing, verifiability, and neutral presentation, all applied through transparent community processes.

The policy is often praised for its clarity and predictability. It provides editors with a standard by which to judge content and gives readers a stable, citable record. At the same time, it is a live system shaped by ongoing discussions about what topics deserve a lasting place in a comprehensive reference work and how to handle topics that attract attention but may lack broad, high-quality sourcing. In practice, this means content that fails to meet established standards for notability or reliable sourcing can be targeted for deletion, while material that clearly does meet those standards can be retained or restored after review. The process emphasizes public discussion, reproducible criteria, and accountability through the community review that underpins Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

Core principles

  • Notability and reliable sourcing: Articles and other substantive pages should meet recognized notability standards and be supported by credible, verifiable sources. The notability standard helps ensure that topics have lasting informational value beyond transient interest, while reliable sources help prevent the encyclopedia from becoming a collection of unchecked opinions. See Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  • Verifiability and neutral presentation: Claims should be verifiable in reliable sources, and the encyclopedia should strive for a neutral, balanced tone that reflects mainstream understanding unless there is a well-documented, significant counterpoint. See Wikipedia:NPOV.
  • Transparency and community governance: Deletion decisions are typically made in public forums where editors can observe, discuss, and audit the reasoning behind a decision. This helps prevent arbitrary removals and encourages consistency across cases. See Wikipedia:Requests for deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reconsideration.

Deletion mechanisms and procedures

  • Notability and sourcing in practice: When a page fails to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources, or when coverage is trivial or repetitive, it may be slated for deletion through structured reviews. The standard procedures rely on Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources to guide outcomes.
  • Speedy deletion versus thorough review: Some pages meet very clear-cut, time-sensitive criteria for immediate removal (e.g., vandalism, obvious test pages, or copied content). These are typically handled through Speedy deletion, i.e., Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Other cases require discussion and broader community input, often via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or related processes.
  • Articles for deletion and related discussions: If a page appears to fail notability or sourcing standards, editors may nominate it for deletion through the AfD mechanism (Articles for deletion). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for the formal process and how consensus is formed. In parallel, discussions may be conducted via broader conversation formats like Wikipedia:Requests for comment if the issue is more about policy interpretation than a specific page.
  • Reconsideration and appeals: Deletion decisions are not necessarily final. If new sources arise or arguments shift the assessment, editors can reopen cases or seek reconsideration. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reconsideration for how to challenge a deletion decision.

Controversies and debates

  • Notability standards versus local or niche topics: Critics contend that broad notability tests can marginalize locally important topics or topics of interest to smaller communities that lack coverage in major outlets. Proponents respond that notability and reliable sourcing protect the encyclopedia from becoming a heterogeneous archive of questionable value. The debate reflects a balance between universal standards and respect for diverse, local interests.
  • Bias and consistency in application: There is ongoing discussion about how consistently the rules are applied, and whether systemic biases affect outcomes. Advocates for clearer, more transparent criteria argue that codified rules reduce discretionary whim, while critics argue that even well-documented policies can be applied unevenly in practice.
  • The role of non-mainstream perspectives: Some critics accuse deletion processes of suppressing minority or dissenting viewpoints if they cannot be tied to widely recognized sources. Supporters claim that the policy does not erase such views but requires them to be documented in credible sources to be given durable space in the encyclopedia. In this framing, the policy is about reliability, not ideology.
  • Widespread criticisms and responses: In public discussions, some detractors describe deletion rules as tools for political gatekeeping. From a practical vantage, those criticisms are answered by noting that the same standards apply to all editors and that transparent procedures exist to challenge or defend decisions. Proponents emphasize that robust sourcing and notability criteria help ensure articles survive scrutiny and contribute to a trustworthy knowledge base.
  • Notability as a living standard: Critics sometimes claim notability criteria lag behind new topics or evolving fields. Supporters argue that notability is not a fixed gate but a living standard that can adapt as credible sources accumulate, and that the deletion framework is designed to adapt in parallel with consensus about what constitutes reliable coverage.

Implementation challenges and reform ideas

  • Balancing openness with quality control: A core challenge is maintaining openness to new contributors while preventing low-value or misleading content from cluttering the encyclopedia. Proponents of reform call for clearer thresholds, faster reviews, and more transparent decision logs.
  • Increasing transparency of determinations: Detailed, accessible explanations for deletion decisions help editors learn and avoid repeated disputes. This includes making the rationale and sources used in decisions readily referenceable and comprehensible to newcomers.
  • Broadening credible sourcing without privileging corporate or mainstream outlets: Some reform discussions focus on expanding what counts as credible sources to better reflect diverse viewpoints while preserving reliability. The goal is to avoid inadvertent bias without sacrificing verifiability.
  • Local and niche topics: Proposals include mechanisms that better recognize durable significance in smaller communities, while still demanding credible sourcing. The idea is to prevent good-faith efforts from being prematurely erased due to a lack of mainstream coverage.
  • Safeguards against politicized enforcement: There is ongoing interest in ensuring that policy application does not become a weapon in ideological disputes. The conversation centers on ensuring that notability, verifiability, and tone are applied consistently, regardless of topic.

See also