Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates

This is an information page.

It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.

Shortcut

WP:PGL

This page in a nutshell: A quick reference of policies that can be cited in deletion debates

This is a list of existing policies that can be used either to support a deletion

nomination

, or in an attempt to prevent deletion in an existing proposal.

This is not a place to create new policies, or to amend existing ones. Edits to this list are limited to adding those not previously listed, removing those that have been revoked, updating those that have been amended, or modifying the language, style, or other details in the manner in which this has been written.

List of policies and guidelines

Favoring deletion

The following is a list of policies and guidelines that can be used for making one's case in proposing a page for deletion. Please note that:

WP:AfD
are only suitable if an entire page has one of these issues and cannot likely be improved. If only part of a page has such an issue, and the remainder does not, only that section should be tagged and/or removed.
Criteria for speedy deletion
are not listed here; they are listed on that page.
Before proposing a page for deletion, see
WP:BEFORE
for alternatives.
For reasons to delete a category, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization.
For reasons to delete an image or file, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion.
For reasons to delete a
WP:R#DELETE
.
For reasons to delete a template, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons to delete a template

Policy/Guideline name	Shortcuts	Summary
Advertising	WP:NOTADVERTISING	Articles that advertise. If advertising is blatant, can be marked as {{ ad }}.
Case study, not a	WP:NOTCASE	Articles examining the relationship between factor A and factor B when not found in any sources
Content forks	WP:POVFORK	Subjects split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject
Crystal ball	WP:FUTURE	The showcasing of unreferenced planned events, products, or releases
Directory	WP:NOTDIR	The listing of directory-like information, particularly external or totally unlinked
Dictionary entries	WP:NAD for full page	Pages that exclusively define the title Lists of dictionary entries, definitions, or slang or jargon guides
External links	WP:NOTLINK	Collections of external links not providing relevant information to a notable subject
Forums	WP:NOT#CHAT	Forums or chats (other than discussions on improving the encyclopedia itself)
Guides	WP:NOTGUIDE	Pages providing guide-like information
How-to	WP:NOTHOWTO	Pages providing how-to instructions, other than how to edit Wikipedia in project space. (Please note that many articles with how-to content can be modified to encyclopedia style. It may be more appropriate simply to place a {{ howto }} tag in these situations.)
Internal links	WP:LINKFARM	Exclusive collections of internal links, except for allowable disambiguation pages
Journalism	WP:NOT#JOURNALISM	First-hand accounts of breaking news
Lyrics	WP:NOT#LYRICS	Pages exclusively providing lyrics to songs
Neologisms	WP:NEO	Articles about newly-coined words
Neutrality (unfixable)	WP:NPOV	Where the nature of the article is such to make it inherently non-neutral.
News	WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER	Routine news coverage
Notability, general guideline	WP:GNG	General requirements for a subject to be notable
Notability, not temporary	WP:SBST	Temporary, brief, short-lived coverage of a subject in reliable sources
Notability, verifiable evidence required	WP:NRVE	Notability requires that verifiable evidence be provided
Off-topic	WP:COATRACK	Where an article, ostensibly on one topic, actually is a content fork of another.
One event	WP:BLP1E	Subjects receiving coverage for a single event
Opinions	WP:NOTOPINION	The publishing of one's personal opinions
Original research	WP:NOR	The publishing of writings or interpretations that have not previously been published
Plots	WP:PLOT	Plot-only articles (if no sources exist to expand the article further, such as reviews or sourced analysis)
Promotion	WP:PROMOTION	Articles promoting a cause
Propaganda, advocacy, and recruitment	WP:NOTADVOCATE	The promotion of a subject
Scandals	WP:NOTSCANDAL	Scandals or gossip
Scientific journal, not a	WP:NOT PAPERS	Information written in the style of a scientific journal
Self-promotion	WP:PROMOTION	Articles about oneself ( autobiographies ) or that promote oneself or one's cause
Soapbox, not a	WP:NOTSOAPBOX	Propaganda or advertising
Statistics, Wikipedia is not for	WP:NOT#STATS	Excessive listing of statistics or the exclusive use of statistics to source an article
Synthesis	WP:SYNTHESIS	A conclusion put together based on if A is true, and B is true, then C must be true when this is not sourced
Textbook, not a	WP:NOTTEXTBOOK	Information written purely to teach subject matter
Things made up in one day, not for	WP:MADEUP	Creations of an individual, group, or community that have not been formally published
Travel guide, not a	WP:NOTTRAVEL	Information written to aid the traveler

Favoring keeping or merging

The following are a list of inclusion guidelines that may be useful to help in keeping an article:

Most of the guidelines listed describe reasons why a subject is worthy of inclusion. While failure to meet one of these guidelines can be used to support a deletion case, this can be negated if the subject meets the inclusion guidelines under another.
A deletion case may also be negated by arguing that the policy/guideline cited in favor of deletion is incorrect or not applicable given the circumstances, providing sources (when the article lacks them), or by making other changes to the article to address the issue.
See Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions for more possible arguments to make your case.

Policy/guideline name	Shortcuts	Summary
Academics	WP:PROFESSOR	Notability requirements for people based on academic achievements
Albums	WP:NALBUMS	When albums can have standalone articles or when they must be mentioned in the article about the artist
Artists	WP:ARTIST	Notability requirements for artists
Athletes	WP:ATHLETE	Notability requirements for athletes
Authors	WP:AUTHOR	Notability requirements for authors
Bands	WP:BAND	Notability requirements for bands
Books	WP:BK	Notability requirements for books to have standalone articles, and when they must be mentioned in the article about the author
Clubs	WP:CLUB	Notability requirements for clubs and non-commercial organizations
Companies	WP:CORP	Notability requirements for companies, commercial enterprises, and other for-profit businesses
Composers	WP:COMPOSER	Notability requirements for composers
Creative professionals	WP:CREATIVE	Notability requirements for creative professionals
Criminal acts	WP:N/CA	Notability guidelines for criminal acts
Diplomats	WP:DIPLOMAT	Notability requirements for diplomats
Entertainers	WP:ENT	Notability requirements for entertainers
Films	WP:NF	Notability requirements for films
Films, future	WP:NFF	Notability requirements for future films
Music	WP:MUSIC	Notability requirements for music
Notability, general guideline	WP:GNG	General requirements for a subject to be notable
Numbers	WP:NUMBER	Notability requirements for articles about numbers
Organizations	WP:ORG	Notability requirements for non-profit organizations
People	WP:PEOPLE	Notability requirements for people
Politicians	WP:POLITICIANS	Notability requirements for politicians
Products	WP:PRODUCT	Notability requirements for products to have standalone articles separate from the articles on their manufacturer
Songs	WP:NSONGS	Notability requirements for songs to have standalone articles (separate from the album or the artist)

Useful essays (and parts of essays)

The following are a list of essays that pertain to inclusion and exclusion. While these are not policies or guidelines, citing them in a deletion debate may at times help in arguing one's case. When citing an essay, it is important to keep in mind that essays can be written by a single editor, can be edited just like an article, and does not require any further consensus. Therefore, if one is used to support deletion or to keep an article proposed for deletion, a good explanation should be given as to why one believes it supports their case.

Essay name	Shortcuts	Summary
Age, notability of	WP:OLDAGE	The age of a subject alone, no matter how old, does not render it automatically notable
Bare notability	WP:MINIMUM	Articles that just barely meet notability requirements may be viewed as having borderline notability, and can possibly face deletion
Bombardment	WP:BOMBARD	About going overboard with references that may not be needed just to make an article look notable
Cares, no one	WP:CARES	Some subjects are of interest to few. They may or may not be notable. But being of interest to few in itself does not automatically make the subject not notable.
Chance, give an article	WP:CHANCE	Don't propose an article for deletion if it hasn't had a chance
Clones	WP:CLONE	Wikipedia clones are not reliable sources (and why)
Coatrack	WP:COATRACK	About articles that are titled to describe one topic but focus on another, often to mask the lack of notability
Deadline, no	WP:DEADLINE	There is no deadline to make any edits to any articles or to finish any project
Demolish, don't	WP:DEMOLISH	Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
Describe within	WP:WITHIN	If little exists about a subject, it may be better described within another article than in a standalone one
Dislike	WP:IDL	Dislike for an article is not sufficient to delete it
Editing, article has none	WP:NOEFFORT	Just because no one has worked on an article (including a stub) does not mean it should be deleted
Existence ≠ Notability	WP:EXISTENCE	Just because a subject exists in this world does not mean it is automatically notable
Fame	WP:FAME	There are differing degrees of fame, and not all guarantee notability
Garage bands	WP:GARAGE	No one wants to see an article on Wikipedia about your non-notable garage band
Google hits	WP:GHITS	A high number of Google hits does not make an article notable, and a low number does not make it not notable
Harm, no	WP:HARMLESS	Saying the existence of an article will do no harm is not grounds for keeping
Inclusion, not an indicator of notability	WP:INN	Just because Wikipedia already has an article does not mean the subject is notable
Independent sources	WP:INDY	Describes the value of having sources independent of the subject
Inherent notability	WP:INHERENT	Some topics are presumed to be inherently notable (meaning all subjects within the category are surely notable)
Insignificant	WP:INSIGNIFICANT	Certain minor details are considered to be insignificant
Leader, follow the	WP:LEADER	Make your own judgment rather than being influenced by the way others (usually the first) comment in a discussion
Liar, liar, your pants are on fire	WP:LIAR	Frowns upons calling others liars in deletion discussions
Like	WP:LIKE	"Liking" an article is not sufficient to keep it
Masking the lack of notability	WP:MASK	Taking steps to hide the fact that the subject of an article is not really notable
Myths and facts about deletion	WP:MYTHS	False beliefs held about deletion debunked
Newspapers, coverage in many	WP:109PAPERS	Short-term coverage in a massive number of newspapers does not render automatic notability
Noble cause	WP:NOBLECAUSE	Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
Not notable, just	WP:JNN	Simply stating that a subject is not notable is not sufficient to get it deleted on this basis
Nothing	WP:NOTHING	response to WP:EVERYTHING
Other stuff exists	WP:OSE	Just because a similar type of article exists does not mean it makes others automatically notable
Overzealous deletion	WP:ZEAL	The practice of "dying to" get an article deleted
Own site, subject's	WP:OWNSITE	Articles cannot be referenced by nothing more than the subject's own site
Phrases, common	WP:COMMONPHRASE	Don't create an article that is just a dictionary entry for a common phrase
Policy, just a	WP:JUSTAPOLICY	Stating a policy only without an accompanying statement is not sufficient to make one's case
Poorly written articles	WP:UGLY	Being poorly written is not grounds for deletion
Popularity	WP:POPULARITY	Being popular does not render a subject automatically notable
Potential, not just current state	WP:NOTIMELIMIT	An article should be judged based on what it can grow into one day, not what it already is
Rank	WP:ONLY	Having a high rank in some category, being the best, or being the only one of something does not mean automatic notability
Recentism	WP:RECENT	Writing articles or information based on current events with the lack of consideration of their importance in the future
Run-of-the-mill	WP:MILL	There are subjects that have verifiable information, but so many of them exist that it is not practical to have articles on all of them
Single source, articles with	WP:ONESOURCE	The pitfalls of articles having a single source
Talent, notability	WP:TALENT	Being talented does not mean being automatically notable
Third party sources	WP:3PARTY	Describes the value of third-party sources
Useful/useless	WP:USELESS	Being judged as "useful" or "useless" is a matter of opinion, and therefore is not grounds for keeping or deleting
Vote, just a	WP:JUSTAVOTE	"Votes" of simply the words "keep" or "delete" do not make a case and are not counted in a deletion discussion
Words, common	WP:COMMONWORD	Don't create an article that is just a dictionary entry for a common word

Non-articles

The guidelines in favor of keeping or deleting non-articles vary:

Redirects

Favoring keeping

Note: The shortcut for all of these is

WP:RFD#KEEP

.

Reason	Criteria #	Reason
Page history	1	They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
Aid in finding similar title	2	They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
Aid in searches	3	They aid searches on certain terms.
Risk in breaking links	4	You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
Someone finds it useful	5	Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
Grammatical variation	6	The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.

Favoring deletion

Note: The shortcut for all of these is

WP:RFD#DELETE

.

Reason	Criteria #	Reason
Difficulty	1	The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
Confusion	2	The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
Abusive/Offensive	3	The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.)
Nonsense	4	The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange.
Cross-namespace	5	It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exceptions to this rule are the "CAT:" and "MOS:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces". (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
Broken	6	If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
Implausible	7	If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
Move	8	If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. Controversial moves should be discussed at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Expansion	9	If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect.
Spam/Self-promotion	10	If the redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)

Templates

Favoring deletion

Reason	Shortcuts	Summary
Namespace violation		The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance. Currently listed as criteria #1 favoring deletion.
Redundance		The template is redundant to a better-designed template. Currently listed as criteria #2 favoring deletion.
Lack of use		The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used. Currently listed as criteria #3 favoring deletion.
Policy violation		The template violates a policy such as NPOV or CIVIL. Currently listed as criteria #4 favoring deletion.

Reason	Shortcut	Reason
Unpopulated categories	WP:CFDS (C1)	Categories that have been unpopulated for at least four days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, featured topics categories, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help). (Place {{Possibly empty category}} at the top of the page to prevent such categories from being deleted.)
Speedy renaming or merging	WP:CFDS (C2)	Typographic and spelling fixes, Capitalization fixes, Conversions from singular to plural (or vice versa), A rename bringing a category or categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, Expanding abbreviated country names, Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name, or Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en-dashes (or vice versa).
Non-defining or trivial characteristic	WP:NONDEF	Categories characterizing a non-notable trait of a subject
Opinion about a question or issue	WP:OPINIONCAT	Categorization based on personal opinions
Subjective inclusion criterion	WP:SUBJECTIVECAT	Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion
Arbitrary inclusion criterion	WP:ARBITRARYCAT	Categories that rank subjects by defined numbers (other than years)
Trivial intersection	WP:OCTRIVIA	Intersections of two traits that are unrelated
Intersection by location	WP:OCLOCATION	Subjects subcategorized by geographical boundary, unless that boundary has relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics
Intersections by ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation	WP:OCEGRS	Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation
Narrow intersection	WP:NARROWCAT	If an article is in "category A" and "category B", it does not follow that a "category A and B" has to be created for this article.
Mostly-overlapping categories	WP:OVERLAPCAT
Unrelated subjects with shared names	WP:SHAREDNAME	Categories with subjects that coincidentally share the same name
Eponymous categories for people	WP:OCEPON	Categories sharing names with people; allowed under certain circumstances
Candidates and nominees	WP:CANDIDATECAT	A candidate for public office, the possible next CEO of a certain corporation, a potential member of a sports team, an actor on the "short list" to play a role, or an award nominee
Award recipients	WP:OCAWARD	People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category.
Published lists	WP:TOPTEN	Magazines and books regularly publish lists of the "top 10" (or some other number) in any particular field. Such lists tend to be subjective and somewhat arbitrary. Some particularly well-known and unique lists such as the Billboard charts may constitute exceptions, although creating categories for them may risk violating the publisher's copyright or trademark.
Venues by event	WP:OC#VENUES	locations by the events or event types that have been held there
Performers by performance	WP:PERFCAT
People associated with	WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH	Vaguely-named categories such as this is determining what degree or nature of "association" is necessary to qualify a person for inclusion in the category

List of policies and guidelines

Favoring deletion

Favoring keeping or merging

Useful essays (and parts of essays)

Non-articles

Categories

Favoring deletion

Redirects

Favoring keeping

Favoring deletion

Templates

Favoring deletion

See also