維基百科:刪除指南

關於頁面存廢討論最重要的一件事，尤其對於新加入的或尚不熟悉規則的維基人來說，記得頁面存廢討論的提名與意見「只是針對條目，並不是針對人」，哪怕是針對您寫的自傳或自賣自誇的條目，也只是討論「條目」本身是否適合放入維基百科中。有時新來的人可能認為刪除條目不友好，不接受某些條目就是不接受寫這些條目的作者，事實上並不是這麽一回事。

包容他人[編輯]

記得頁面存廢討論是個繁忙、總是存在大量重複的地方。志願參與頁面存廢討論運作的人們的意見有時可能看起來過於簡練、粗魯和唐突，但他們通常不是故意要如此的。我們重視禮貌且總是盡量假定他人的行為是善意的，但每天都有15至50個頁面被提出來討論，許多有經驗的維基人經歷過數以千計的存廢討論，看過並考慮過許多同樣的申訴理由，所以他們在討論中經常用如後面列出的縮略語或提出過去類似的討論案例存檔，避免一次又一次重複打出同樣的理由。他們只是為了效率，不是有意粗魯。

存廢討論遵循常規的討論頁禮儀。請您在參與前花時間熟悉下列方針或指引：不要傷害新手、文明、生者傳記、不要人身攻擊、禮儀。

當然，所有的維基人都應該試着避免在頁面存廢討論發表的意見顯得過於簡練、粗魯和唐突。所有維基人都應該儘量以尊重和美好的心意對待條目的貢獻者。

操縱「傀儡」是不被容忍的[編輯]

捷徑

WP:AFDSOCK

傀儡，是指「被『破壞者』或者『不誠信的貢獻者』所創建後，並用來擾亂存廢討論」的賬戶（亦即在中國大陸被網民俗稱的「馬甲」賬戶）。另一種相近的變體是真人傀儡，是指「被動員來試圖改變存廢討論結果」的人（亦即類似在中國大陸被網民俗稱「五毛黨」的人）（例如我的關於一個論壇的條目被提刪後我在該論壇召集人員試圖改變結果）。

這種伎倆很常見，所以新用戶在存廢討論的評論有時會被人懷疑。這些用戶與希望改善項目的正當新用戶難以區分。如果有人注意到你是一個新用戶，請理解其用心——這是一個會在結束討論時被考慮的事實，而不是人身攻擊。

存廢討論結束過程中會慎重考慮貢獻歷史和評論方式。文明的發言和符合邏輯的論據通常在他人的懷疑中受益，而敵對的評論會被當作是惡意的。

任何人提出的可供查證的事實和證據都是受歡迎的且會在完結討論的過程中被考慮。

討論期間繼續編輯被請求刪除的條目[編輯]

您和其他人都會被歡迎繼續編輯被請求刪除的條目，被請求刪除並不是就被凍結了，維基百科鼓勵您根據討論所提出的問題改善這個條目。

假如您請求刪除一個條目，並且相信這個條目一定會被刪除，也還可以繼續編輯使其更符合維基的格式，讀者不會不去閱讀一個格式不正確的條目，雖然這個條目註定要被刪除。

但是您不能進行下列三種情況的編輯：

您絕不能把一個條目清空，再對其重定向，或和其他條目合併；
您絕不能去除一個請求刪除模版或修改這個模版；
您絕不能在沒有將討論頁一起重命名的情況下將這個條目重命名。

上述這些要求「僅僅」是從技術角度出發。在一個條目被請求刪除期間，模版一定要保留，這樣讀者和編輯看到這個條目時都能了解它被請求刪除，因此可以到討論頁發表自己的意見。同時保持模版和刪除請求頁面之間的聯繫，GFDL許可協議也要求保留作者姓名。

要想改變條目的名稱或重定向，必須等到決定該條目是否刪除的討論結束。您可以在討論中使用下面的縮略語提出該條目是否應該改變名稱或重定向。

同樣在討論過程中也不應該將條目和其他條目合併，因為合併後這個條目會成為一個重定向條目，因此喪失了編輯歷史和作出貢獻的作者的信息，違反了GFDL協議。所以合併也必須等到討論結束。下面也有縮略語可以用來表示您希望這個條目應該和哪個條目合併。

刪除過程[編輯]

從維基百科中刪除一個條目可以根據兩個政策，一是快速刪除，這項過程可能只有很少數人能閱讀這個條目，因此要求非常嚴格。大部分條目基本應該遵照Wikipedia:刪除方針，一個條目被請求刪除，必須經過討論，然後管理員根據討論的結果來決定，尤其是對於要求刪除圖片、模版、重定向或分類，都要經過這種過程，因為這種刪除會牽扯到許多維基人，希望能夠得到絕大多數人的一致贊同，比起快速刪除來，可以儘量少犯錯誤。

請求刪除[編輯]

請求刪除要經過三道手續：請求者要

在條目中放上請求刪除的模版；
在當天的存廢討論頁面中創建討論；
在主要作者用戶頁面上提出刪除警告。

請求者必須完成全部三個程序，否則您的請求可能會被忽略。在請求刪除之前，請：

仔細閱讀刪除方針，看清楚什麽「不是」請求刪除的原因，考慮好您是否只是想將這個條目和其他合併？希望繼續擴展？而不是簡單地將其刪除。

考慮一下您是否可以繼續編寫這個條目，是否可以只是加一個小條目或小小條目就可以了，而不必要求刪除。

檢查一下左面工具條中的「鏈入頁面」，看有多少其他條目使用了和它的連結。

查看一下您要求刪除的是否一個普通條目，如果是圖片或其他檔案檔案另有的刪除程序。

請求刪除要先列出條目名稱，然後提出請求刪除的理由。要記住簽名，加上四個~~~~就可以簽名。沒有提請人簽名的投票可能會作廢。

所有自動確認用戶都可以提請刪除。如果您是這個條目的唯一作者，您的請求可以使用快速刪除。重要的不是誰請求的，而是請求的是否有道理，明顯是故意破壞的請求則無效。

請求刪除的人要表明自己的態度，投上「刪除」的一票。除非提請人不同意刪除，例如是有經驗的維基人代替其他沒有資格提刪的或不會使用請求刪除的人來請求，或在其他條目討論中要求刪除這個條目，這時替代的提請人也應該明確表明自己的態度：是棄權還是認為應該保留。

討論[編輯]

為了方便，您可以將發表的討論貼在該請求刪除下面，當然您可以發表幾個貼子，應該將您是否同意用黑體明確標明，再加上理由的縮略語。是否評論由您自己決定，假如有人不參加投票，可以用"意見:"表達自己的建議，但要明確表示不代表您的投票。

任何人都可以參與討論，不管是匿名的或使用假名的。條目的作者（即使不是自動確認用戶）可以參與討論和投票，和其他人同等對待。重要的不是誰，而是您表達的意見和投票是否真誠。要清楚管理員在討論結束作決定時，會不理會那些明顯地沒有道理的投票和討論。而相反，如果一個用戶會根據Wikipedia:刪除方針以正確的方式進行爭辯，即使他是匿名的，也可能能夠左右決定是否刪除。

討論的目的是達成共識，盡力彌補分歧，但維基百科不是民主試驗場，多數票不是決定因素。在投票時最好將您的理由詳盡的表明，能說服不同意見的人讓步；或提出一個變通辦法。讓管理員在討論結束作出決定時，能明白您所提出的理由，或在條目修改時能採納您提出的建議。下面有一些縮略語可以使用，以節省打字的時間。「不講道理的投票會被視為無效」。

有經驗的參與刪除討論的人會經常再次訪問討論頁，看看其他人提出的理由或條目修改情況決定自己是否修改投票意見或提出新的意見堅持自己的投票。但請注意「只能投一次票」。如果您想改變想法，請不要刪除您的原有投票，而是用<s>...</s>劃掉。不要劃掉、刪除或更改其他人的投票意見，即使您相信他們是不懷好意的，除非是被禁封的人。明顯的是由同一個人投的兩次票會被視為一次，甚至會被認為無效。

「請不要在其他人投票中間插入您的評論」，雖然您可能認為這會幫助決定是否刪除，但您仍然要明白投票並「不是決定因素」，維基百科不是民主試驗場，上下文之間的順序在投票過程和結束時都是了解投票人意見的關鍵因素，中間插入評論並不能使確定投票結果更容易，反而更困難。

結束討論[編輯]

在請求刪除的討論經過一段時間後，一位管理員可以根據討論結果決定是否刪除以結束討論，這種過程並不是民主，投票對於管理員只是一個參考，是否刪除取決於管理員的判斷，一個好的管理員如同一個好的投票者一樣，應該明確說明自己為什麽採取這種決定。

結束投票後還要封存投票結果，以便將來重寫這個條目時參考，或重定向、重命名以及和其他條目合併時參考，如果最後決定是和其他條目合併，可能工作量很大，時間緊張的管理員也許只是在條目上加一個需要合併的模版，大家都可以做這個工作。

投票[編輯]

投票的結果只能有兩種，一是保留；一是刪除，因此您如果投保留，就會連同編輯歷史一起保留，如果投刪除，就會連同編輯歷史一起刪除。如果有其他的意見，也會聯繫到這兩種基本意見之一（通常複雜的意見會因為技術原因被推遲）。

只要有理由，需要進一步完善或設定某些條件的意見也是可以接受的，（但是太複雜的數學公式形式的意見是無法解讀的，會被管理員忽略）下面是一些複合的建議實例：

「刪除」然後建立一個「重定向」到……。投這種票的人認為目前這個條目和其編輯歷史因為某種原因不應該保留，（例如具有誹謗性），但這種條目應該有，希望重定向到已經存在的或再重新寫的條目中。

如果某個問題可以解決，應該「合併」，否則「刪除」。投這種票的人認為管理員應該考慮給予一定的時間進行修改。
「刪除」但保留紅字連結。投這種票的人認為目前這個條目和其編輯歷史因為某種原因不應該保留，但應該保留條目名稱，以便其他人再寫，同時保留連結。

投票縮略語下列是一些通常用於投票過程中的縮略語：

「快速刪除 」或「快速」或「CSD」是速記的「刪除本文根據快速刪除標準」。投票支持「快速刪除」的使用者認為，根據文章"限定快速刪除"的標準，而無須進行進一步的AFD過程。

已隱藏部分未翻譯內容，歡迎參與翻譯。

"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.

加強語氣[編輯]

可以用下面一些縮略語加強語氣：

「強烈的」表示對觀點的堅定的信念，而且編輯者不太可能在未來改變這個決定。通常來說，這是因為編輯者相信維基百科的方針很明確的表明了這篇文章應該被保留或刪除。然而，有些時候這僅僅反映了編輯者強烈的自我想法，而不是對方針的尊重。
「虛弱的」表示編輯者在對這個觀點缺乏信心，而且編輯者可能在未來改變這個決定。通常來說，這是因為編輯者在沒有更多信息或討論的情況下對此不確定。
「速度」經常表示對這篇文章的一些投票誤解了刪除方針。（參考先前部分）

不正確的投票[編輯]

有一些新來的人不太熟悉請求刪除的規則，可能會表達一些互相矛盾或違反維基刪除方針的意見，應該避免使用下列不正確的表達意見的縮略語：

已隱藏部分未翻譯內容，歡迎參與翻譯。

"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.

表達理由[編輯]

在刪除投票過程中提出理由比單純投票「更」重要，下面列出一些表達理由所使用的縮略語，主要是想提高一下效率和速度。但並不是所有的維基人都同意這些縮略語能表示出詳細的理由，或對是否刪除能起作用。這些縮略語並不正式規定代表投票，只是表示「投票者的想法」。

規範縮略語[編輯]

下面是最常用的規範縮略語：

已隱藏部分未翻譯內容，歡迎參與翻譯。

"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.

其他縮略語[編輯]

下列這些縮略語既不代表投票也不代表陳述理由，只是一些參與討論的其他意見：

「重寫條目」和「修改條目」分別表示「我已經重寫了條目或已修改為有意義的內容，之前提刪的投票可能需要在重新閱讀條目後考慮是否繼續進行」。一些編者認為 AFD 的部分樂趣在於重寫條目，然後之前受投票影響的條目的「提刪投票」被替換為「某人重寫後而保留」。
「評論」表示「尚不足採取投票的需要」。無需把評論標記為註釋，因為高亮的投票會讓它們突出顯示。在多數情況下，評論只是告知管理員相關信息以為投票達成共識作出決定。不過，一些貢獻者在處於縮進的極外層時會明確標記評論為註釋。
「棄權」和「不投票」同樣表示「這種情況無需投票」。它們常出現在其他用戶的任免提名上。

請求刪除的條件[編輯]

從技術上來講，所有的條目，包括主頁、Wikipedia條目、用戶頁面和talk頁面都可以被提請刪除。但實際上如果提請刪除主頁或其他重要的指導條目等於是打投票仗，或讓大家引用WP:POINT，一般不會獲得一致意見。大家一般會對Wikipedia條目和用戶頁面比較寬容，甚至允許Wikipedia條目中包括象棋比賽，允許用戶頁面的描述非常偏激。除非您有非常重大的理由，一般不要提請刪除用戶頁面。

再次提請刪除

如果刪除請求的投票沒有能達成一致，應該先保留這個條目。要注意的是這並不妨礙繼續編輯、重命名這個條目或與其他條目合併，因為這些活動並不包括在投票刪除範圍內。同時也沒有任何規則不允許再次將這個條目提出請求刪除，也沒有規定再次請求刪除需要的時間間隔。然而再次提請刪除時您應該考慮到大家的感受，在兩個星期內最好不要提請刪除同一個已經保留的條目，除非您有更充實的理由可以說服大家改變主意，最好經過一段足夠長的時間以後再提。

上述情況不包括那些沒有引起人們注意的刪除投票，例如只有2-3個人投票，這時可以立即再次提請刪除，以便引起人們的注意。當然，這也不是說所有的投票人數少的請求都要再次提出，尤其是雖然票數少但意見相當一致的更沒有必要再次請求。維基並不那麽官僚，對於請求刪除也沒有規定法定人數。

參見[編輯]