维基百科:删除指南

关于页面存废讨论最重要的一件事，尤其对于新加入的或尚不熟悉规则的维基人来说，记得页面存废讨论的提名与意见“只是针对条目，并不是针对人”，哪怕是针对您写的自传或自卖自夸的条目，也只是讨论“条目”本身是否适合放入维基百科中。有时新来的人可能认为删除条目不友好，不接受某些条目就是不接受写这些条目的作者，事实上并不是这么一回事。

包容他人

记得页面存废讨论是个繁忙、总是存在大量重复的地方。志愿参与页面存废讨论运作的人们的意见有时可能看起来过于简练、粗鲁和唐突，但他们通常不是故意要如此的。我们重视礼貌且总是尽量假定他人的行为是善意的，但每天都有15至50个页面被提出来讨论，许多有经验的维基人经历过数以千计的存废讨论，看过并考虑过许多同样的申诉理由，所以他们在讨论中经常用如后面列出的缩略语或提出过去类似的讨论案例存档，避免一次又一次重复打出同样的理由。他们只是为了效率，不是有意粗鲁。

存废讨论遵循常规的讨论页礼仪。请您在参与前花时间熟悉下列方针或指引：不要伤害新手、文明、生者传记、不要人身攻击、礼仪。

当然，所有的维基人都应该试着避免在页面存废讨论发表的意见显得过于简练、粗鲁和唐突。所有维基人都应该尽量以尊重和美好的心意对待条目的贡献者。

操纵“傀儡”是不被容忍的

快捷方式

WP:AFDSOCK

傀儡，是指“被‘破坏者’或者‘不诚信的贡献者’所创建后，并用来扰乱存废讨论”的账户（亦即在中国大陆被网民俗称的“马甲”账户）。另一种相近的变体是真人傀儡，是指“被动员来试图改变存废讨论结果”的人（亦即类似在中国大陆被网民俗称“五毛党”的人）（例如我的关于一个论坛的条目被提删后我在该论坛召集人员试图改变结果）。

这种伎俩很常见，所以新用户在存废讨论的评论有时会被人怀疑。这些用户与希望改善项目的正当新用户难以区分。如果有人注意到你是一个新用户，请理解其用心——这是一个会在结束讨论时被考虑的事实，而不是人身攻击。

存废讨论结束过程中会慎重考虑贡献历史和评论方式。文明的发言和符合逻辑的论据通常在他人的怀疑中受益，而敌对的评论会被当作是恶意的。

任何人提出的可供查证的事实和证据都是受欢迎的且会在完结讨论的过程中被考虑。

讨论期间继续编辑被请求删除的条目

您和其他人都会被欢迎继续编辑被请求删除的条目，被请求删除并不是就被冻结了，维基百科鼓励您根据讨论所提出的问题改善这个条目。

假如您请求删除一个条目，并且相信这个条目一定会被删除，也还可以继续编辑使其更符合维基的格式，读者不会不去阅读一个格式不正确的条目，虽然这个条目注定要被删除。

但是您不能进行下列三种情况的编辑：

您绝不能把一个条目清空，再对其重定向，或和其他条目合并；
您绝不能去除一个请求删除模版或修改这个模版；
您绝不能在没有将讨论页一起重命名的情况下将这个条目重命名。

上述这些要求“仅仅”是从技术角度出发。在一个条目被请求删除期间，模版一定要保留，这样读者和编辑看到这个条目时都能了解它被请求删除，因此可以到讨论页发表自己的意见。同时保持模版和删除请求页面之间的联系，GFDL许可协议也要求保留作者姓名。

要想改变条目的名称或重定向，必须等到决定该条目是否删除的讨论结束。您可以在讨论中使用下面的缩略语提出该条目是否应该改变名称或重定向。

同样在讨论过程中也不应该将条目和其他条目合并，因为合并后这个条目会成为一个重定向条目，因此丧失了编辑历史和作出贡献的作者的信息，违反了GFDL协议。所以合并也必须等到讨论结束。下面也有缩略语可以用来表示您希望这个条目应该和哪个条目合并。

删除过程

从维基百科中删除一个条目可以根据两个政策，一是快速删除，这项过程可能只有很少数人能阅读这个条目，因此要求非常严格。大部分条目基本应该遵照Wikipedia:删除方针，一个条目被请求删除，必须经过讨论，然后管理员根据讨论的结果来决定，尤其是对于要求删除图片、模版、重定向或分类，都要经过这种过程，因为这种删除会牵扯到许多维基人，希望能够得到绝大多数人的一致赞同，比起快速删除来，可以尽量少犯错误。

请求删除

请求删除要经过三道手续：请求者要

在条目中放上请求删除的模版；
在当天的存废讨论页面中创建讨论；
在主要作者用户页面上提出删除警告。

请求者必须完成全部三个程序，否则您的请求可能会被忽略。在请求删除之前，请：

仔细阅读删除方针，看清楚什么“不是”请求删除的原因，考虑好您是否只是想将这个条目和其他合并？希望继续扩展？而不是简单地将其删除。

考虑一下您是否可以继续编写这个条目，是否可以只是加一个小条目或小小条目就可以了，而不必要求删除。

检查一下左面工具条中的“链入页面”，看有多少其他条目使用了和它的链接。

查看一下您要求删除的是否一个普通条目，如果是图片或其他文件档案另有的删除程序。

请求删除要先列出条目名称，然后提出请求删除的理由。要记住签名，加上四个~~~~就可以签名。没有提请人签名的投票可能会作废。

所有自动确认用户都可以提请删除。如果您是这个条目的唯一作者，您的请求可以使用快速删除。重要的不是谁请求的，而是请求的是否有道理，明显是故意破坏的请求则无效。

请求删除的人要表明自己的态度，投上“删除”的一票。除非提请人不同意删除，例如是有经验的维基人代替其他没有资格提删的或不会使用请求删除的人来请求，或在其他条目讨论中要求删除这个条目，这时替代的提请人也应该明确表明自己的态度：是弃权还是认为应该保留。

讨论

为了方便，您可以将发表的讨论贴在该请求删除下面，当然您可以发表几个贴子，应该将您是否同意用黑体明确标明，再加上理由的缩略语。是否评论由您自己决定，假如有人不参加投票，可以用"意见:"表达自己的建议，但要明确表示不代表您的投票。

任何人都可以参与讨论，不管是匿名的或使用假名的。条目的作者（即使不是自动确认用户）可以参与讨论和投票，和其他人同等对待。重要的不是谁，而是您表达的意见和投票是否真诚。要清楚管理员在讨论结束作决定时，会不理会那些明显地没有道理的投票和讨论。而相反，如果一个用户会根据Wikipedia:删除方针以正确的方式进行争辩，即使他是匿名的，也可能能够左右决定是否删除。

讨论的目的是达成共识，尽力弥补分歧，但维基百科不是民主试验场，多数票不是决定因素。在投票时最好将您的理由详尽的表明，能说服不同意见的人让步；或提出一个变通办法。让管理员在讨论结束作出决定时，能明白您所提出的理由，或在条目修改时能采纳您提出的建议。下面有一些缩略语可以使用，以节省打字的时间。“不讲道理的投票会被视为无效”。

有经验的参与删除讨论的人会经常再次访问讨论页，看看其他人提出的理由或条目修改情况决定自己是否修改投票意见或提出新的意见坚持自己的投票。但请注意“只能投一次票”。如果您想改变想法，请不要删除您的原有投票，而是用<s>...</s>划掉。不要划掉、删除或更改其他人的投票意见，即使您相信他们是不怀好意的，除非是被禁封的人。明显的是由同一个人投的两次票会被视为一次，甚至会被认为无效。

“请不要在其他人投票中间插入您的评论”，虽然您可能认为这会帮助决定是否删除，但您仍然要明白投票并“不是决定因素”，维基百科不是民主试验场，上下文之间的顺序在投票过程和结束时都是了解投票人意见的关键因素，中间插入评论并不能使确定投票结果更容易，反而更困难。

结束讨论

在请求删除的讨论经过一段时间后，一位管理员可以根据讨论结果决定是否删除以结束讨论，这种过程并不是民主，投票对于管理员只是一个参考，是否删除取决于管理员的判断，一个好的管理员如同一个好的投票者一样，应该明确说明自己为什么采取这种决定。

结束投票后还要封存投票结果，以便将来重写这个条目时参考，或重定向、重命名以及和其他条目合并时参考，如果最后决定是和其他条目合并，可能工作量很大，时间紧张的管理员也许只是在条目上加一个需要合并的模版，大家都可以做这个工作。

投票

投票的结果只能有两种，一是保留；一是删除，因此您如果投保留，就会连同编辑历史一起保留，如果投删除，就会连同编辑历史一起删除。如果有其他的意见，也会联系到这两种基本意见之一（通常复杂的意见会因为技术原因被推迟）。

只要有理由，需要进一步完善或设定某些条件的意见也是可以接受的，（但是太复杂的数学公式形式的意见是无法解读的，会被管理员忽略）下面是一些复合的建议实例：

“删除”然后建立一个“重定向”到……。投这种票的人认为目前这个条目和其编辑历史因为某种原因不应该保留，（例如具有诽谤性），但这种条目应该有，希望重定向到已经存在的或再重新写的条目中。

如果某个问题可以解决，应该“合并”，否则“删除”。投这种票的人认为管理员应该考虑给予一定的时间进行修改。
“删除”但保留红字链接。投这种票的人认为目前这个条目和其编辑历史因为某种原因不应该保留，但应该保留条目名称，以便其他人再写，同时保留链接。

投票缩略语下列是一些通常用于投票过程中的缩略语：

“快速删除 ”或“快速”或“CSD”是速记的“删除本文根据快速删除标准” 。投票支持“快速删除”的使用者认为，根据文章"限定快速删除"的标准，而无须进行进一步的AFD过程。

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

"Copyvio" is a shorthand for "Delete this article through the copyright violation deletion process rather than through AFD". A voter who votes "Copyvio" should list the article at en:Wikipedia:Copyright problems and apply the copyright violation notice to the article. Copyright violation supercedes AFD for article content, and usually AFD discussion ceases at this point. However, in rare cases the discussion may continue as to whether an article by this title is merited, which will affect the status of any rewrite article resulting from the copyright problems process.
"BJAODN" is a shorthand for "Delete and submit to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, deleting the resultant redirect". BJAODN is a page where Wikipedians archive pages that they deem to be worthy of saving for humour value. People do not necessarily consider the article a bad joke or nonsensical; indeed, a number of amusing and coherent articles that simply do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion have been partially preserved in this form.
"Userfy" is a shorthand for "Rename to the author's userspace and Delete the resultant redirect left behind in the main namespace". A voter who votes "Userfy" thinks that the article's content is appropriate for a user page, and should be moved there. This can also apply to vanity articles created by anonymous authors, the implication being that the anonymous author should create a user account to hold the user page.
"Transwiki to sibling project" is a shorthand for "Submit to the transwiki scheme for moving to sibling project and delete afterwards". A voter who votes "Transwiki" usually does so in the belief that whilst the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia it is appropriate for one of its sibling projects. Note that articles that are copies of articles from other language Wikipedia projects meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Of course, an article to transwiki should not be deleted until transwikiing is complete.
"Wiktionary" is a shorthand for "Submit to the transwiki scheme for moving to Wiktionary and delete afterwards". A voter who votes "Wiktionary" usually does so in the belief that whilst the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia it is appropriate for en:Wiktionary. This is used for articles that are nothing more than a dictionary definition, and are unlikely to develop further. This is by far the most common Transwiki candidate.
"Wikisource" is a shorthand for "Submit to the transwiki scheme for en:Wikisource and delete afterwards". A voter who votes "Wikisource" usually does so in the belief that whilst the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia it is appropriate for Wikisource. This is used for articles that constitute a "text dump" of source materials (essays, papers, books) that are in the en:public domain.
"Merge to Example" is a shorthand for "Keep and merge the content into Example, leaving a redirect afterwards". A voter who votes "Merge" usually does so in the belief that the article content is valuable, and that the article should be merged into a more complete, more general, or simply pre-existing article. This is a common solution to things which are non-notable on their own or are otherwise redundant with an existing article.
"Merge to Example and disambig" is a shorthand for "Keep and merge the content into Example, then turn the article into a disambiguation page". A voter who votes "Merge and disambig" usually does so in the belief that the article content is valuable and should be merged into a more complete or general article, but that the title may refer to several different topics, and therefore a disambiguation page is preferred over a simple redirect.
"Redirect to Example" is usually a shorthand for "Keep and change into a redirect article pointing to Example". A voter who votes "Redirect" usually does so in the belief that whilst the article's content is discardable, a redirect should exist to redirect readers who use that article title to a more complete, more general, or simply pre-existing article. Usually, a pure "redirect" means the voter wants the article's history kept. If the voter wants the history deleted before the redirect is made to replace it, s/he may instead write "Delete and redirect".
"Dab" is sometimes used as shorthand for 'disambig', as above.
"Rename to Example" is a shorthand for "Keep and rename the page to Example". A voter who votes "Rename" usually does so in the belief that the article content is valuable, but that the article is mis-named, for whatever reason. (The name may be misleading, or may not conform to a neutral point of view, for examples.)
"Cleanup" is a shorthand for "Keep and send to cleanup". A voter who votes "Cleanup" usually does so in the belief that whilst the article is appropriate for Wikipedia as it stands it is in need of cleaning up. Note that it is perfectly permissible for an article to be listed for cleanup (by applying one or more of the appropriate cleanup tags) whilst it is still being discussed. It is not necessary to wait until the end of the discussion.
"Speedy keep" is a (rarely used) shorthand for "Keep this article and close the discussion now". A voter who votes "Speedy Keep" thinks that the nomination was an improper one that was made in error or as vandalism. (Please bear in mind the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith before making this vote.) Articles are generally not unlisted unless the nominator withdraws and there have not been any "delete" votes yet.

加强语气

可以用下面一些缩略语加强语气：

“强烈的” 表示对观点的坚定的信念，而且编辑者不太可能在未来改变这个决定。通常来说，这是因为编辑者相信维基百科的方针很明确的表明了这篇文章应该被保留或删除。然而，有些时候这仅仅反映了编辑者强烈的自我想法，而不是对方针的尊重。
“虚弱的”表示编辑者在对这个观点缺乏信心，而且编辑者可能在未来改变这个决定。通常来说，这是因为编辑者在没有更多信息或讨论的情况下对此不确定。
“速度”经常表示对这篇文章的一些投票误解了删除方针。（参考先前部分）

不正确的投票

有一些新来的人不太熟悉请求删除的规则，可能会表达一些互相矛盾或违反维基删除方针的意见，应该避免使用下列不正确的表达意见的缩略语：

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

"Merge to Example and Delete". Article merger requires that editing history of the source article be kept, for attribution purposes as required by the GFDL. It is not allowed to delete the editing history whilst retaining this content. The reason why this should be avoided is that if the article has a nontrivial editing history, "merging the history" is a very laborious operation for the acting sysop. When closing discussion, administrators will usually consider this to be one of the following instead:
- "merge to Example"
- "Delete all article content and edit history and then re-create as a redirect to Example"

An exception to this is the case of an article where, apart from the AFD nomination, the entire article history consists of a single edit by a single user. In this case, the GFDL requirements are easily satisfied by a simple attribution on the target article's Talk page and "merge and delete" is a reasonable disposition.

It has been suggested that merge and delete is possible with proper attribution by moving the AFDed page to a subpage of the talk page of the article it's merged with and linking it from the talk page. This would preserve history and not leave behind a possibly meaningless (or worse) redirect.

"Merge to Example without redirect". An article merger without the final step of creating a redirect is not actually a merger at all. In fact, it actually exacerbates the duplication. Whilst the voter's intent may well be to vote for deletion, when closing discussion administrators will usually err on the side of caution (as per deletion policy) and consider this vote to be "Merge to Example", which might not be what the voter wanted at all.

表达理由

在删除投票过程中提出理由比单纯投票“更”重要，下面列出一些表达理由所使用的缩略语，主要是想提高一下效率和速度。但并不是所有的维基人都同意这些缩略语能表示出详细的理由，或对是否删除能起作用。这些缩略语并不正式规定代表投票，只是表示“投票者的想法”。

规范缩略语

下面是最常用的规范缩略语：

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

"essay" is a shorthand for "This article is original research that contravenes the no original research policy, or a long essay that promotes a particular point of view, contravening the neutral point of view policy". Both policies are fundamental Wikipedia policies. Such articles should be published via other outlets, instead of in Wikipedia.
"how-to" is a shorthand for "The article is a set of instructions on doing something rather an article than on the thing itself". Although articles should discuss how a particular activity is accomplished, they should generally not provide step-by-step guides directing the reader on how to do so; that is the province of Wikipedia's sibling project en:Wikibooks.
"neologism" is a shorthand for "The word or phrase used is not well-established enough to merit a Wikipedia article." This may be either a literal en:neologism (a new word which is simply not well-established) or a vanity neologism (a word coined in a small community but not used outside it). The article may need to be renamed or simply deleted. Note that in some cases a neologism can mean a word or phrase that is of recent origin, even if widely used and therefore having encyclopedic relevance (e.g., en:e-democracy).
"original research" is a shorthand for "The article is someone's private theory, critique, rant, or essay".
"patent nonsense" is shorthand for "A nonsensical article". Nonsensical articles are usually either labelled such for their writing style or for containing fabricated, nonsensical material; in the case of the former, rewriting is a possibility.
"non-encyclopaedic" is shorthand for "Something that traditionally does not belong in an encyclopaedia, and doesn't fit the traditional definition of things that do". This in itself may not be enough to justify a reason for deletion, unless the article is clearly a case of what Wikipedia is not. Note that some users use this term and "non-notable" interchangeably.
"non-notable" or "nn" are shorthands for "Something that (the voter thinks) is unimportant due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type". See above for several guidelines to notability that some Wikipedians agree upon and apply. If the article is related to something more common or well-known, consider merging it with that.
"personal attack" is shorthand for "The article specifically attacks some person, group, idea or thing, which is a violation of both Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and basic manners, and may well be libellous to boot". Criticism, however, is welcome on Wikipedia, provided that it is factual, non-biased, and civil.
"POV" is shorthand for "The article's title, or its mere existence, make it inherently biased, thus violating Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy, and that it should therefore be deleted". People using this shorthand don't mean you are not entitled to a point of view, simply that the article must not support one point of view exclusively or over contrary points of view.
"POV fork" is a shorthand for "This article was created primarily to present the subject of an existing article from a different point of view". Note however that creating a temporary "sandbox" version of an article where parties in a POV dispute can propose changes is allowed.
"promotional", "advertisement", "'ad", "advertorial", "spam", and "Wikispam" are shorthands for "The article's central intent is to promote a website, product, or business". See what Wikipedia is not.
"recipe" is a shorthand for "The article is a recipe, giving preparation instructions rather than discussing the foodstuff in question". Although articles on foods should discuss how the food is made and what is used to make it, they should not provide step-by-step guides directing the reader on how to do so; that is the province of our sister project en:Wikibooks.
"too secret" is a shorthand for "Secret societies are unverifiable and often non-notable". Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. Almost by definition, the world cannot verify things about secret societies.
"vanity" is a shorthand for "This page is about a person, institution, or organization who Wikipedia's guidelines suggest does not merit an article". Many Wikipedians will willingly admit that they themselves do not merit articles. Use of this term as reasoning is supposed to suggest that the voter believes that the article was created or edited by the subject of the article or by a close associate, but sometimes the term is used simply to express the opinion that the article lacks usefulness.
"en:WP:POINT" refers to the rule that one should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Occasionally, nominations or votes are made in reaction to something not relevant. For instance, if an article on one's favorite band is on AFD, one should not AFD the en:Rolling Stones in response. Nor should one oppose someone's votes simply on grounds of not liking that person.
"wrong namespace" is a shorthand for "The article is an article about Wikipedia, its workings, and/or its participants". Such articles should be moved into either the "Wikipedia:" namespace (in other words, en:ArticleAboutWikipedia becomes en:Wikipedia:ArticleAboutWikipedia) or into a user subpage (in which case the article would become en:User:Article'sCreator/ArticleAboutWikipedia). Some articles may instead be moved to the en:Wikimedia meta pages. Note that articles may be moved by any logged-in user, so these typically should not be listed for this reason.

其他缩略语

下列这些缩略语既不代表投票也不代表陈述理由，只是一些参与讨论的其他意见：

“重写条目”和“修改条目”分别表示“我已经重写了条目或已修改为有意义的内容，之前提删的投票可能需要在重新阅读条目后考虑是否继续进行”。一些编者认为 AFD 的部分乐趣在于重写条目，然后之前受投票影响的条目的“提删投票”被替换为“某人重写后而保留”。
“评论”表示“尚不足采取投票的需要”。无需把评论标记为注释，因为高亮的投票会让它们突出显示。在多数情况下，评论只是告知管理员相关信息以为投票达成共识作出决定。不过，一些贡献者在处于缩进的极外层时会明确标记评论为注释。
“弃权”和“不投票”同样表示“这种情况无需投票”。它们常出现在其他用户的任免提名上。

请求删除的条件

从技术上来讲，所有的条目，包括主页、Wikipedia条目、用户页面和talk页面都可以被提请删除。但实际上如果提请删除主页或其他重要的指导条目等于是打投票仗，或让大家引用WP:POINT，一般不会获得一致意见。大家一般会对Wikipedia条目和用户页面比较宽容，甚至允许Wikipedia条目中包括象棋比赛，允许用户页面的描述非常偏激。除非您有非常重大的理由，一般不要提请删除用户页面。

再次提请删除

如果删除请求的投票没有能达成一致，应该先保留这个条目。要注意的是这并不妨碍继续编辑、重命名这个条目或与其他条目合并，因为这些活动并不包括在投票删除范围内。同时也没有任何规则不允许再次将这个条目提出请求删除，也没有规定再次请求删除需要的时间间隔。然而再次提请删除时您应该考虑到大家的感受，在两个星期内最好不要提请删除同一个已经保留的条目，除非您有更充实的理由可以说服大家改变主意，最好经过一段足够长的时间以后再提。

上述情况不包括那些没有引起人们注意的删除投票，例如只有2-3个人投票，这时可以立即再次提请删除，以便引起人们的注意。当然，这也不是说所有的投票人数少的请求都要再次提出，尤其是虽然票数少但意见相当一致的更没有必要再次请求。维基并不那么官僚，对于请求删除也没有规定法定人数。

参见