Wikipedia stands as a monumental testament to collaborative knowledge-building, offering immense visibility and credibility. However, this open platform is governed by a complex web of policies and guidelines, leading to a common frustration: the deletion of articles. Many individuals and organizations invest significant effort into crafting what they believe is a worthy Wikipedia page, only to see it vanish. This disappearance isn't arbitrary; it's the result of rigorous community-enforced standards designed to maintain the encyclopedia's integrity. Understanding these standards is the first step to creating content that notably contributes and, crucially, endures.
This essay aims to demystify Wikipedia's deletion landscape. It will explore the core reasons articles face removal, delve into the various deletion processes, and provide a clear action plan for creating articles that not only survive but also thrive within Wikipedia's ecosystem.
Part 1: The "Why" – Unpacking Wikipedia's Core Content Policies
At the heart of Wikipedia's content moderation are several foundational policies. Violating these is the primary reason articles get deleted. These aren't just suggestions; they are the DNA of the platform.
A. The Notability Hurdle: Is Your Topic "Worthy of Notice"?
The most frequent reason for an article's deletion is a failure to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.3 Notability, in Wikipedia's terms, means a topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". This isn't about being famous or popular in a colloquial sense; it's about being "worthy of notice" as evidenced by verifiable, objective proof.
A common pitfall is mistaking online presence or self-promotion for genuine notability. For instance, a local coffee shop with a vibrant social media presence but no coverage in major, independent publications would likely fail the notability test. Similarly, a company whose "notability" is evidenced only by its own press releases or website content will not meet the standard. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator; it records what the world has already noticed, rather than being a platform to generate that notice.
The case of the "Identity fusion" article illustrates the nuances of notability, particularly for academic or specialized topics. Initially, the draft was rejected because reviewers perceived a lack of broad usage, with many cited papers co-authored by the term's originator. This was interpreted as failing the independence or widespread adoption aspect of notability for a neologism. While the authors felt the peer-reviewed papers demonstrated significance, the reviewers' focus on the single-author connection highlighted a strict interpretation of the neologism policy, a subset of notability. The situation was compounded by a reviewer's comment implying the term needed to be in "common parlance," a standard not strictly aligned with Wikipedia's policy for specialist topics. This demonstrates that even with potentially valid sources, the interpretation of "significant independent coverage" can be rigorous, especially for new concepts.
It's crucial to understand that simply existing does not make a subject notable for Wikipedia.6 The burden of proof lies in demonstrating, through reliable, independent sources, that the world has already taken significant notice. Without this, an article is built on shaky ground.
B. The Neutrality Mandate: Avoiding Promotion and Conflict of Interest (COI)
Wikipedia's core policy of a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is non-negotiable. Articles must be written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources, without endorsing or rejecting any particular one. This means:
The challenge for individuals deeply involved with a topic—be it their own research, company, or creative work—is often the "curse of knowledge." Their familiarity can make it hard to step back and write from a truly neutral, encyclopedic perspective. What seems like factual information to them might appear promotional or overly detailed to an uninvolved editor. For example, a marketing director creating an article for their crypto firm, even if presenting factual information about features and awards, is likely to do so with an inherent promotional slant, relying on company press releases and their own website. Such an article, lacking independent coverage and written in a promotional tone by someone with a clear conflict of interest, is a prime candidate for deletion.
While Wikipedia requires the disclosure of paid editing, this is a transparency measure, not a license to bypass core policies like NPOV or notability. Disclosed paid edits are still expected to be neutral, well-sourced, and encyclopedic. Some editors remain highly skeptical of paid contributions, viewing them as inherently prone to promotionalism. Therefore, the best approach to avoid COI-related deletion is to have a neutral, uninvolved editor create or significantly review the article.4
C. The Source Code: The Critical Role of Reliable, Independent References
Every claim on Wikipedia must be verifiable through reliable, published sources. This principle, known as WP:V, is paramount. Indeed, "truth is important on Wikipedia, but reference-ability is more important". If something cannot be sourced, it doesn't belong, regardless of its perceived truth.
The hierarchy of source reliability is also a factor to consider. Not all "reliable sources" carry equal weight. For scientific topics, peer-reviewed academic journals are generally considered more reliable than general news articles. For general notability, national newspapers often carry more weight than local ones. The context of the claim dictates the appropriate type and strength of the source required.
A subtle issue that can undermine an article's sourcing is "churnalism." This occurs when multiple media outlets essentially republish content derived from a single press release or promotional piece. While these might appear as several independent sources, experienced Wikipedia editors can often identify this pattern, diminishing their collective value in establishing notability or supporting claims. The true independence and originality of the coverage matter more than the sheer number of mentions.
D. Content Catastrophes: Copyright, Original Research, and More
Beyond notability, neutrality, and sourcing, several other content policies can lead to deletion:
These core content policies are often interconnected. For example, promotional content (violating WP:NOT#PROMO and WP:NPOV) frequently relies on non-independent sources (failing WP:V and WP:N) and may involve making unsubstantiated claims that constitute original research (violating WP:NOR). The crypto firm article mentioned earlier is a case in point: it suffered from promotionalism, conflict of interest, and reliance on non-independent press releases, demonstrating how multiple policy violations can compound. Understanding this interconnectedness is vital for building a compliant article holistically.
Furthermore, the concept of "close paraphrasing" being a copyright violation can be a trap for newcomers. Many assume that changing a few words is sufficient to avoid infringement. However, copyright protects the creative expression and structure, not just the literal sequence of words. A deep understanding of copyright principles is necessary to avoid inadvertently creating derivative works that violate policy.
Part 2: Navigating the Gauntlet – Understanding Wikipedia's Deletion Processes
When an article is deemed to violate Wikipedia's policies, it can enter one of several deletion processes. These mechanisms range from swift removal for clear-cut violations to community-wide discussions for more nuanced cases.
A. Speedy Deletion (CSD): The Fast Track to Removal
Speedy Deletion (CSD) is reserved for articles that clearly and uncontroversially violate specific Wikipedia policies, requiring no formal discussion for their removal.5 This process is often alarming for new contributors due to its swiftness; an article can be nominated and deleted within hours, sometimes minutes, especially if it's a blatant violation.
Common reasons for speedy deletion include:
The CSD process typically involves an editor tagging an article with a specific CSD criterion. A Wikipedia administrator then reviews the tag and, if they agree, deletes the page. New Page Patrollers (NPPs), who review newly created articles for compliance, often initiate CSD nominations. This means that newly created articles are under immediate scrutiny, making a strong, policy-compliant first impression critical.
The abrupt nature of CSD, without prior discussion, can be jarring for those unfamiliar with the specific criteria. If a speedy deletion is believed to be a mistake, the primary recourse is to contact the deleting administrator directly or, for more complex cases, to appeal at Deletion Review (DRV). However, contesting a CSD after the fact is generally more challenging than preventing it in the first place.
B. Proposed Deletion (PROD): The "Uncontroversial" Cut
Proposed Deletion (PROD) is a process for articles that appear to warrant deletion but do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion, and where the deletion is expected to be uncontroversial. This might apply to articles that are poorly sourced, appear non-notable but aren't blatant spam, or have other issues that seem resolvable without a full debate.
When an editor proposes an article for deletion via PROD, they add a tag to the article stating the reason. If no editor objects to the proposal by removing the PROD tag within seven days, an administrator can then delete the article. The PROD process is designed to be less confrontational, allowing the community to self-regulate without lengthy debates on clear, albeit not urgent, issues.
Contesting a PROD is straightforward: any editor can remove the PROD tag, typically providing an explanation in the edit summary or on the article's Talk Page. Once a PROD tag is removed, it cannot be re-added to the same article. If the issues persist, the article must then be nominated for discussion through the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process if deletion is still sought.
A PROD serves as a clear warning that an article has significant problems requiring attention. The seven-day window is an explicit opportunity for improvement. While removing the tag is easy, doing so without addressing the underlying concerns often merely postpones a more formal deletion discussion at AfD.
C. Articles for Deletion (AfD): The Community Debate
Articles for Deletion (AfD) is Wikipedia's primary forum for community discussion about whether an article that does not qualify for CSD, or for which a PROD has been contested, should be deleted. This process is initiated when an editor nominates an article, providing a reason based on Wikipedia policies.
An AfD discussion typically lasts for seven days, during which any registered Wikipedia editor can participate by offering arguments to "keep," "delete," "merge" (combine with another article), "redirect" (turn the title into a pointer to another article), or suggest other outcomes. Crucially, the outcome of an AfD is determined by consensus, as judged by an uninvolved administrator who closes the discussion. This consensus is based on the strength and relevance of policy-based arguments presented, not on a simple majority vote or headcount. Weak arguments full of opinions, unsupported by Wikipedia's guidelines, carry little weight.
AfD discussions can become quite technical, with participants citing specific Wikipedia guidelines and policies. For newer editors, this can make it challenging to understand the nuances of the debate, and they should not hesitate to ask for clarification. While potentially stressful, these discussions can also be highly educational, offering insights into how experienced editors interpret and apply policies.
The case of the "Identity fusion" article, which was eventually recreated and improved after an initial deletion (likely following discussions that led to its abandonment), demonstrates that an AfD or similar scrutiny isn't always a final verdict if issues can be substantively addressed. However, there's often a "momentum toward deletion" in AfD discussions, and early arguments, particularly those citing specific policies like Notability, can significantly influence the outcome. Nominators often have an advantage, meaning a robust, policy-based defense needs to be mounted early and effectively to counter the deletion rationale.
It's also important to recognize that AfD doesn't always result in a binary "keep" or "delete" outcome. Other common resolutions include merging the content into a broader article, redirecting the title, or the discussion closing with "no consensus," which typically defaults to keeping the article. Understanding these potential alternative outcomes can be valuable for contributors whose articles face an AfD.
Part 3: Building a Deletion-Proof Article – Your Action Plan
Avoiding deletion largely comes down to understanding and meticulously adhering to Wikipedia's core policies from the outset. "Preparation beats panic" is a guiding principle.
A. Foundation First: Mastering Notability and Sourcing Before You Write
The most critical step in creating a durable Wikipedia article is to establish notability before writing any content for the article itself. This involves:
If sufficient sources meeting Wikipedia's stringent criteria cannot be found, the topic is likely not notable enough for a standalone article at this time.6 Attempting to force an article without this foundation is a common path to deletion.
B. The Neutrality Principle: Writing with an Unbiased, Encyclopedic Voice
Once notability seems established through strong sources, the content itself must adhere to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV). This means:
C. Respecting the Rules: Copyright, Verifiability, and Originality
Adherence to other core content policies is also essential:
D. Engage and Collaborate: The Power of the Talk Page and Community
Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Engaging with other editors, especially when issues arise, is key:
E. Maintenance Matters: Keeping Your Article Alive and Well (Post-Creation)
Creating a Wikipedia article is not a one-time task; it requires ongoing effort. Ongoing maintenance is necessary:
It's important to remember that notability can be reassessed. Even long-standing articles can be nominated for deletion if circumstances change, new information emerges, or the original assessment of notability is challenged.Thus, vigilance and a willingness to adapt are essential components of the long-term commitment to maintaining a Wikipedia article. This ongoing "gardening" – weeding out problems and nurturing healthy growth – is crucial for an article's longevity.
Playing by Wikipedia's Rules for Lasting Impact
The journey of a Wikipedia article, from creation to enduring presence, is paved with adherence to the encyclopedia's core principles: Notability, Neutrality, Verifiability through Reliable Sourcing, and No Original Research. While navigating Wikipedia's intricate rules and community processes can seem daunting and bureaucratic at times, it is not an insurmountable challenge.
Success on Wikipedia is not about finding loopholes or gaming the system; it's about genuinely contributing to a global knowledge resource within its established framework. An article that meticulously follows these guidelines is not only less likely to be deleted but also more likely to achieve the credibility and visibility that makes a Wikipedia presence so valuable. When contributors focus on providing verifiable, neutral, and notable information, their work gains a legitimacy that stands the test of time.
By approaching Wikipedia with an understanding of its policies, respect for its community, and a commitment to its encyclopedic mission, individuals and organizations can create articles that are not just entries but lasting assets within this dynamic ecosystem. The effort to comply with these standards, while significant, yields the long-term payoff of a stable, credible, and impactful contribution to shared human knowledge.
This essay aims to demystify Wikipedia's deletion landscape. It will explore the core reasons articles face removal, delve into the various deletion processes, and provide a clear action plan for creating articles that not only survive but also thrive within Wikipedia's ecosystem.
Part 1: The "Why" – Unpacking Wikipedia's Core Content Policies
At the heart of Wikipedia's content moderation are several foundational policies. Violating these is the primary reason articles get deleted. These aren't just suggestions; they are the DNA of the platform.
A. The Notability Hurdle: Is Your Topic "Worthy of Notice"?
The most frequent reason for an article's deletion is a failure to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.3 Notability, in Wikipedia's terms, means a topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". This isn't about being famous or popular in a colloquial sense; it's about being "worthy of notice" as evidenced by verifiable, objective proof.
- The General Notability Guideline (GNG): An article is generally presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- "Significant coverage" means sources address the topic directly and in detail, beyond a mere passing mention. A book-length history of IBM is significant; a single sentence mentioning Bill Clinton was in a high school band called "Three Blind Mice" is trivial coverage for the band.
- "Reliable sources" possess editorial integrity and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. These typically include mainstream news publications, academic journals, books from respected publishers, and other vetted materials.6 The availability of multiple such secondary sources is a strong indicator.
- "Independent of the subject" means the sources are not produced by the article's subject or those affiliated with it. Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's own website are excluded when establishing notability.
- "Secondary sources" are preferred as they provide objective evidence of notability. These are documents or recordings that relate or discuss information originally presented elsewhere.
A common pitfall is mistaking online presence or self-promotion for genuine notability. For instance, a local coffee shop with a vibrant social media presence but no coverage in major, independent publications would likely fail the notability test. Similarly, a company whose "notability" is evidenced only by its own press releases or website content will not meet the standard. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator; it records what the world has already noticed, rather than being a platform to generate that notice.
The case of the "Identity fusion" article illustrates the nuances of notability, particularly for academic or specialized topics. Initially, the draft was rejected because reviewers perceived a lack of broad usage, with many cited papers co-authored by the term's originator. This was interpreted as failing the independence or widespread adoption aspect of notability for a neologism. While the authors felt the peer-reviewed papers demonstrated significance, the reviewers' focus on the single-author connection highlighted a strict interpretation of the neologism policy, a subset of notability. The situation was compounded by a reviewer's comment implying the term needed to be in "common parlance," a standard not strictly aligned with Wikipedia's policy for specialist topics. This demonstrates that even with potentially valid sources, the interpretation of "significant independent coverage" can be rigorous, especially for new concepts.
It's crucial to understand that simply existing does not make a subject notable for Wikipedia.6 The burden of proof lies in demonstrating, through reliable, independent sources, that the world has already taken significant notice. Without this, an article is built on shaky ground.
B. The Neutrality Mandate: Avoiding Promotion and Conflict of Interest (COI)
Wikipedia's core policy of a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is non-negotiable. Articles must be written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources, without endorsing or rejecting any particular one. This means:
- No Advertising or Promotion: Content that reads like an advertisement, marketing material, or a press release is strictly forbidden and a common cause for deletion. Information about companies and products must be objective and free of "puffery". A Wikipedia article is not an extension of a company's website or marketing efforts.
- Conflict of Interest (COI): Writing about oneself, one's company, or any subject with which one has a close affiliation presents a conflict of interest. It is exceptionally difficult to maintain a neutral point of view when personally invested in the subject. Wikipedia strongly discourages self-promotion, and articles created under a COI are heavily scrutinized.
The challenge for individuals deeply involved with a topic—be it their own research, company, or creative work—is often the "curse of knowledge." Their familiarity can make it hard to step back and write from a truly neutral, encyclopedic perspective. What seems like factual information to them might appear promotional or overly detailed to an uninvolved editor. For example, a marketing director creating an article for their crypto firm, even if presenting factual information about features and awards, is likely to do so with an inherent promotional slant, relying on company press releases and their own website. Such an article, lacking independent coverage and written in a promotional tone by someone with a clear conflict of interest, is a prime candidate for deletion.
While Wikipedia requires the disclosure of paid editing, this is a transparency measure, not a license to bypass core policies like NPOV or notability. Disclosed paid edits are still expected to be neutral, well-sourced, and encyclopedic. Some editors remain highly skeptical of paid contributions, viewing them as inherently prone to promotionalism. Therefore, the best approach to avoid COI-related deletion is to have a neutral, uninvolved editor create or significantly review the article.4
C. The Source Code: The Critical Role of Reliable, Independent References
Every claim on Wikipedia must be verifiable through reliable, published sources. This principle, known as WP:V, is paramount. Indeed, "truth is important on Wikipedia, but reference-ability is more important". If something cannot be sourced, it doesn't belong, regardless of its perceived truth.
- Defining Reliable Sources (WP:RS): These are sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, typically involving editorial oversight. Examples include mainstream news articles, books from reputable academic or commercial publishers, and peer-reviewed academic journals. Conversely, unreliable sources include personal blogs, social media posts, forum discussions, self-published books, and a company's own website for claims beyond basic, non-controversial facts about itself (e.g., official headquarters location).
- Defining Independent Sources: These are created by individuals or organizations that are separate from the subject and do not have a vested interest in it. Press releases, company websites, or interviews with the subject are generally not considered independent sources for establishing notability or supporting significant claims, as they are typically primary or self-serving promotional materials.
- Preference for Secondary Sources: Wikipedia prefers secondary sources—those that analyze, interpret, or synthesize information from primary sources—as they provide the most objective evidence of notability and context.6
The hierarchy of source reliability is also a factor to consider. Not all "reliable sources" carry equal weight. For scientific topics, peer-reviewed academic journals are generally considered more reliable than general news articles. For general notability, national newspapers often carry more weight than local ones. The context of the claim dictates the appropriate type and strength of the source required.
A subtle issue that can undermine an article's sourcing is "churnalism." This occurs when multiple media outlets essentially republish content derived from a single press release or promotional piece. While these might appear as several independent sources, experienced Wikipedia editors can often identify this pattern, diminishing their collective value in establishing notability or supporting claims. The true independence and originality of the coverage matter more than the sheer number of mentions.
D. Content Catastrophes: Copyright, Original Research, and More
Beyond notability, neutrality, and sourcing, several other content policies can lead to deletion:
- Copyright Violations (WP:C): Directly copying text from other websites, books, or any copyrighted source is a serious violation and a common reason for speedy deletion. This includes "close paraphrasing," where text is copied with minor changes but retains substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure. While limited use of quotations under "fair use" is permissible, it is narrowly defined and must be properly attributed. Contributors must ensure they have the right to use any text or media they upload
- No Original Research (WP:NOR): Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes existing, published knowledge; it is not a place to publish new ideas, theories, analyses, or conclusions. All material must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Personal interpretations or synthesizing published material to reach a new conclusion are forms of original research and are not allowed.
- Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP): Articles about living individuals are subject to particularly strict rules regarding sourcing and neutrality to prevent harm, defamation, and privacy violations. Any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, without discussion.
- What Wikipedia is Not (WP:NOT): Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a dictionary, an instruction manual, a travel guide, a platform for advocacy or propaganda, a crystal ball, a directory, or a collection of personal essays. Content falling into these categories is often deleted.
These core content policies are often interconnected. For example, promotional content (violating WP:NOT#PROMO and WP:NPOV) frequently relies on non-independent sources (failing WP:V and WP:N) and may involve making unsubstantiated claims that constitute original research (violating WP:NOR). The crypto firm article mentioned earlier is a case in point: it suffered from promotionalism, conflict of interest, and reliance on non-independent press releases, demonstrating how multiple policy violations can compound. Understanding this interconnectedness is vital for building a compliant article holistically.
Furthermore, the concept of "close paraphrasing" being a copyright violation can be a trap for newcomers. Many assume that changing a few words is sufficient to avoid infringement. However, copyright protects the creative expression and structure, not just the literal sequence of words. A deep understanding of copyright principles is necessary to avoid inadvertently creating derivative works that violate policy.
Part 2: Navigating the Gauntlet – Understanding Wikipedia's Deletion Processes
When an article is deemed to violate Wikipedia's policies, it can enter one of several deletion processes. These mechanisms range from swift removal for clear-cut violations to community-wide discussions for more nuanced cases.
A. Speedy Deletion (CSD): The Fast Track to Removal
Speedy Deletion (CSD) is reserved for articles that clearly and uncontroversially violate specific Wikipedia policies, requiring no formal discussion for their removal.5 This process is often alarming for new contributors due to its swiftness; an article can be nominated and deleted within hours, sometimes minutes, especially if it's a blatant violation.
Common reasons for speedy deletion include:
- Blatant advertising or spam (e.g., an article solely promoting a product with no encyclopedic content).
- Unambiguous copyright violations (e.g., a direct copy-paste from another website).
- Vandalism or patent nonsense (e.g., gibberish or test pages).
- Attack pages (created solely to disparage a subject).
- Articles with no credible indication of significance (often applied under criteria like A7 for people, organizations, or web content that don't assert importance).
The CSD process typically involves an editor tagging an article with a specific CSD criterion. A Wikipedia administrator then reviews the tag and, if they agree, deletes the page. New Page Patrollers (NPPs), who review newly created articles for compliance, often initiate CSD nominations. This means that newly created articles are under immediate scrutiny, making a strong, policy-compliant first impression critical.
The abrupt nature of CSD, without prior discussion, can be jarring for those unfamiliar with the specific criteria. If a speedy deletion is believed to be a mistake, the primary recourse is to contact the deleting administrator directly or, for more complex cases, to appeal at Deletion Review (DRV). However, contesting a CSD after the fact is generally more challenging than preventing it in the first place.
B. Proposed Deletion (PROD): The "Uncontroversial" Cut
Proposed Deletion (PROD) is a process for articles that appear to warrant deletion but do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion, and where the deletion is expected to be uncontroversial. This might apply to articles that are poorly sourced, appear non-notable but aren't blatant spam, or have other issues that seem resolvable without a full debate.
When an editor proposes an article for deletion via PROD, they add a tag to the article stating the reason. If no editor objects to the proposal by removing the PROD tag within seven days, an administrator can then delete the article. The PROD process is designed to be less confrontational, allowing the community to self-regulate without lengthy debates on clear, albeit not urgent, issues.
Contesting a PROD is straightforward: any editor can remove the PROD tag, typically providing an explanation in the edit summary or on the article's Talk Page. Once a PROD tag is removed, it cannot be re-added to the same article. If the issues persist, the article must then be nominated for discussion through the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process if deletion is still sought.
A PROD serves as a clear warning that an article has significant problems requiring attention. The seven-day window is an explicit opportunity for improvement. While removing the tag is easy, doing so without addressing the underlying concerns often merely postpones a more formal deletion discussion at AfD.
C. Articles for Deletion (AfD): The Community Debate
Articles for Deletion (AfD) is Wikipedia's primary forum for community discussion about whether an article that does not qualify for CSD, or for which a PROD has been contested, should be deleted. This process is initiated when an editor nominates an article, providing a reason based on Wikipedia policies.
An AfD discussion typically lasts for seven days, during which any registered Wikipedia editor can participate by offering arguments to "keep," "delete," "merge" (combine with another article), "redirect" (turn the title into a pointer to another article), or suggest other outcomes. Crucially, the outcome of an AfD is determined by consensus, as judged by an uninvolved administrator who closes the discussion. This consensus is based on the strength and relevance of policy-based arguments presented, not on a simple majority vote or headcount. Weak arguments full of opinions, unsupported by Wikipedia's guidelines, carry little weight.
AfD discussions can become quite technical, with participants citing specific Wikipedia guidelines and policies. For newer editors, this can make it challenging to understand the nuances of the debate, and they should not hesitate to ask for clarification. While potentially stressful, these discussions can also be highly educational, offering insights into how experienced editors interpret and apply policies.
The case of the "Identity fusion" article, which was eventually recreated and improved after an initial deletion (likely following discussions that led to its abandonment), demonstrates that an AfD or similar scrutiny isn't always a final verdict if issues can be substantively addressed. However, there's often a "momentum toward deletion" in AfD discussions, and early arguments, particularly those citing specific policies like Notability, can significantly influence the outcome. Nominators often have an advantage, meaning a robust, policy-based defense needs to be mounted early and effectively to counter the deletion rationale.
It's also important to recognize that AfD doesn't always result in a binary "keep" or "delete" outcome. Other common resolutions include merging the content into a broader article, redirecting the title, or the discussion closing with "no consensus," which typically defaults to keeping the article. Understanding these potential alternative outcomes can be valuable for contributors whose articles face an AfD.
Part 3: Building a Deletion-Proof Article – Your Action Plan
Avoiding deletion largely comes down to understanding and meticulously adhering to Wikipedia's core policies from the outset. "Preparation beats panic" is a guiding principle.
A. Foundation First: Mastering Notability and Sourcing Before You Write
The most critical step in creating a durable Wikipedia article is to establish notability before writing any content for the article itself. This involves:
- Thorough Source Research: Conduct exhaustive research to find multiple, high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the intended topic.
- Objective Assessment: Critically evaluate these sources against Wikipedia's definitions. Do they truly offer in-depth coverage? Are they genuinely independent of the subject? Do they come from reputable publications with editorial oversight? Newcomers often struggle with this objective assessment, sometimes overvaluing passing mentions or non-independent coverage.
- The "Pre-Mortem" Check: Before investing time in writing, perform a mental "pre-mortem." Ask: "If another editor saw this topic presented with only these sources and nominated it for deletion, would it realistically survive based on policy?" This self-critical approach can prevent wasted effort on topics that are not yet ready for Wikipedia.
If sufficient sources meeting Wikipedia's stringent criteria cannot be found, the topic is likely not notable enough for a standalone article at this time.6 Attempting to force an article without this foundation is a common path to deletion.
B. The Neutrality Principle: Writing with an Unbiased, Encyclopedic Voice
Once notability seems established through strong sources, the content itself must adhere to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV). This means:
- Factual and Objective Tone: Avoid promotional language, "puffery," marketing jargon, and subjective "peacock terms" (e.g., "groundbreaking," "acclaimed").
- Attribution of Opinions: Clearly attribute opinions or subjective claims to the specific sources that make them; do not state them as facts in Wikipedia's own voice.
- Proportionate Representation: Present all significant viewpoints fairly and in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. Avoid giving undue weight to minority views or fringe theories. NPOV is more than just avoiding biased words; it's about the overall balance, structure, and framing of information. Subtle bias can manifest through selective sourcing or disproportionate emphasis on certain aspects.
- Conflict of Interest (COI) Management: If a conflict of interest exists (e.g., writing about one's own company or work), it is crucial to disclose this on the user page and the article's Talk Page.4 An even better approach is to suggest the article through the "Articles for Creation" (AfC) process, where uninvolved editors review drafts, or to request that an experienced, neutral editor write or thoroughly review the article.4 The same principles of neutrality apply when editing articles about competitors or related topics to avoid edit warring or introducing bias.
C. Respecting the Rules: Copyright, Verifiability, and Originality
Adherence to other core content policies is also essential:
- No Copyright Infringement: All text must be original or properly licensed. Do not copy and paste from other websites or publications, even with minor alterations (close paraphrasing). Attribute all quotations scrupulously. Images must also be freely licensed (e.g., Creative Commons CC BY-SA) or meet Wikipedia's very strict criteria for non-free content (fair use), which are limited.
- Verifiability: Every piece of information, especially anything likely to be challenged, must be attributable to a reliable, published source cited inline (usually with a footnote). Remember the maxim: "Verifiability, not truth". Even if something is known to be true by an expert, if it hasn't been published in a reliable source, it generally cannot be included.
- No Original Research: Wikipedia summarizes existing knowledge; it does not publish new ideas, analyses, interpretations, or syntheses of information that lead to new conclusions. Stick to what has already been established in reliable sources.
D. Engage and Collaborate: The Power of the Talk Page and Community
Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Engaging with other editors, especially when issues arise, is key:
- Use Talk Pages: Every article has an associated Talk Page for discussing its content, proposing changes, resolving disputes, and asking questions.
- Respond to Concerns: If an article is tagged (e.g., for notability, neutrality) or nominated for deletion (PROD or AfD), engage constructively on the relevant discussion page. Address the specific concerns raised by other editors politely, using policy-based arguments and providing better sources if sourcing is the issue. Silence can be interpreted negatively, as if conceding the points or showing disinterest, making deletion more likely.
- Assume Good Faith: While disagreements are common, assume that other editors are trying to improve Wikipedia in accordance with its policies, even if their feedback appears critical.
- Avoid Edit Warring: Do not repeatedly revert changes made by other editors. If there's a content dispute, discuss it on the Talk Page to reach a consensus.
- A history of constructive edits and participation on Wikipedia can lend a degree of credibility ("street cred") in discussions, although policy-based arguments always remain paramount.
E. Maintenance Matters: Keeping Your Article Alive and Well (Post-Creation)
Creating a Wikipedia article is not a one-time task; it requires ongoing effort. Ongoing maintenance is necessary:
- Monitor for Changes: Use the "Watchlist" feature to monitor the article for unsourced additions, vandalism, or biased edits.
- Keep it Current: Update the article with new, reliable information and sources as they become available. This helps maintain its relevance and can reinforce its notability over time.
- Address New Issues: If other editors raise new tags or concerns, address them promptly and constructively on the Talk Page.
It's important to remember that notability can be reassessed. Even long-standing articles can be nominated for deletion if circumstances change, new information emerges, or the original assessment of notability is challenged.Thus, vigilance and a willingness to adapt are essential components of the long-term commitment to maintaining a Wikipedia article. This ongoing "gardening" – weeding out problems and nurturing healthy growth – is crucial for an article's longevity.
Playing by Wikipedia's Rules for Lasting Impact
The journey of a Wikipedia article, from creation to enduring presence, is paved with adherence to the encyclopedia's core principles: Notability, Neutrality, Verifiability through Reliable Sourcing, and No Original Research. While navigating Wikipedia's intricate rules and community processes can seem daunting and bureaucratic at times, it is not an insurmountable challenge.
Success on Wikipedia is not about finding loopholes or gaming the system; it's about genuinely contributing to a global knowledge resource within its established framework. An article that meticulously follows these guidelines is not only less likely to be deleted but also more likely to achieve the credibility and visibility that makes a Wikipedia presence so valuable. When contributors focus on providing verifiable, neutral, and notable information, their work gains a legitimacy that stands the test of time.
By approaching Wikipedia with an understanding of its policies, respect for its community, and a commitment to its encyclopedic mission, individuals and organizations can create articles that are not just entries but lasting assets within this dynamic ecosystem. The effort to comply with these standards, while significant, yields the long-term payoff of a stable, credible, and impactful contribution to shared human knowledge.