The deletion policy describes how articles, media, and other pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, many pages are deleted each day through the processes outlined below.

Deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view. Page blanking can be performed (or reverted) by any user, but only administrators can perform deletion, view deleted pages, and reverse ("undelete") any deletion. All such actions (other than viewing) are recorded in the deletion log, and deletion statistics are recorded at Wikipedia:Deletion statistics. If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will not normally delete it.

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

1. Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
2. Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
3. Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
4. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content
5. Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes
7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
8. Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
9. Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
10. Redundant or otherwise useless templates
11. Categories representing overcategorization
12. Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy
13. Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.

Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.

Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.

A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. Tags, however, are not intended as permanent solutions; they are intended to warn the readers and to allow interested editors to easily locate and fix the problems. Tags are listed here. Some of the more common ones include:

• {{copyedit}} for poor writing
• {{Expert needed}} for articles needing expert attention
• {{Not English}} for articles written in a foreign language
• {{POV}} for bias
• {{Stub}} for a short article
• {{More citations needed}} for lack of verifiability
• {{Merge}} for a small article that could be merged into a larger one
• {{Cleanup}} for other issues.

Pages with incorrect names can simply be renamed. Naming disputes are discussed on the articles' talk pages or listed at requested moves.

Be mindful when adding tags to biographies of living persons. Certain tags are known to produce VRT complaints from the article's subject; for instance {{notability}}, because it may be interpreted as Wikipedia passing judgement on the person. An alternative is nominating the article for deletion so that consensus may be more quickly established.

Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists. For example, information about family members of a celebrity who are not otherwise notable is generally included in, or merged into, the article on that celebrity. Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear.

If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand.

Note that an outcome of "merge and delete" may potentially cause licensing problems if attribution for the merged content is lost in the process. The essay Wikipedia:Merge and delete discusses this, whereas the essay Wikipedia:Delete or merge discusses a different case that causes no such licensing problems.

A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Recently created articles that have potential, but do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace, optionally via the articles for creation (AfC) process. If drafts are not edited for a period of six months, they are eligible for deletion under criteria for speedy deletion G13. In comparison to user space drafts, the draft namespace makes these proto-articles easier to find and work on collaboratively. Moving to user space is still preferred for templates that seem to serve a single editor's needs or essays that only reflect a particular editor's viewpoint. Drafts in user space are not subject to G13 deletion unless submitted to AfC.

Incubation must not be used as a "backdoor to deletion". Because abandoned drafts are deleted after six months, moving articles to draft space should generally be done only for newly created articles (typically as part of new page review) or as the result of a deletion discussion. Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD.

Some articles do not belong on Wikipedia but fit one of the Wikimedia sister projects. They may be copied there using transwiki functionality before considering their merger or deletion. If an article to be deleted is likely to be re-created under the same name, it may be turned into a soft redirect to a more appropriate sister project's article.

Please note that articles that seem transwiki-appropriate to editors of the English Wikipedia may not be:

• Wiktionary does not accept transwikis
• Wikinews has recency requirements for stories and uses a different license, the latter of which rules out transwiki closes in virtually all cases
• Wikivoyage almost never accepts articles on individual attractions; destinations should be either places or, rarely, exceptionally high-profile attractions, neither of which are likely to be deleted from Wikipedia

There are four basic processes for deletion and two to review and overturn the outcome of these processes and other deletions.

For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot host content that is in violation of copyright.

• Where to find them: Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Files for discussion
• How to do this: See Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For other pages, remove the violation if possible, or edit the page to replace its entire content with {{subst:copyvio}}. For blatant, whole-page copyright violation, you can simply tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio|url=...}} after checking that there are no non-copyvio versions in the page history.
• If you disagree: Try to contact the authors of the text or image and see if they are willing to release their work (1) under an acceptable license (for text, this is CC BY-SA and GFDL co-licensed, CC BY-SA alone, or CC BY-SA-compatible), or (2) into the public domain. Permission to use a work "on Wikipedia only" or "for non-commercial use only" isn't enough, as it is incompatible with our license.
• Renominations: Recreations of copyrighted content are speedily deleted, as below. It is disruptive to persist in recreating such content.

Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Speedy deletion should not be used except in the most obvious cases.

If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it must not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations. Pages currently on proposed deletion or deletion discussion (see below) may be deleted through speedy deletion.

• Where to find them: A list of all pages flagged for speedy deletion can be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.
• How to do this: Administrators can delete such pages on sight. Other editors can request speedy deletion by editing the relevant page to add a speedy deletion template to the top of the page.
• If you disagree: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. If a page you created is tagged for speedy deletion, you may either improve the page or explain your reasoning on the relevant talk page. The page may still be deleted if it meets the speedy deletion criteria. If a page has been speedily deleted and there is disagreement over whether or not it should have been, this is discussed at deletion review, described below.
• Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below, rather than being deleted.

An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially does not belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. Such a page can be deleted by any administrator if, after seven days, no one objects to the proposed deletion. Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again. This process only applies to pages in the main namespace (article namespace) and the file namespace. Redirects are not eligible for proposed deletion (for information on deleting redirects, see Wikipedia:Redirect § When should we delete a redirect?).

• Where to find them: A list of all pages flagged for proposed deletion can be found in Category:Proposed deletion, as well as in an automatically generated summary table.
• How to do this: Edit the page to add the following text to the top: {{subst:prod|reason}}, writing your reasoning in the "reason" field.
• If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases, the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page. It is also desirable to add {{old prod}} at the top of the article's talk page (or beneath WikiProject banners).
• Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. If an editor still feels the page ought to be deleted, a deletion discussion should be used, as indicated below.

The proposed deletion process for unsourced biographies requires all biographies of living persons to have at least one source in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise). Once the article is tagged in this manner, the {{prod blp}} tag may not be removed until at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject is provided. If none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after seven days. This does not affect any other deletion process.

Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussion venues, the results of which may be reviewed after the fact at Wikipedia:Deletion review (see below). This includes contested speedy or proposed deletions. Here, editors who wish to participate can give their opinions on what should be done with the page.

These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least seven full days. If there is consensus to delete pages, this is done afterwards by an administrator. A nomination that gets little response after the discussion period has ended can be relisted if the closing editor believes that more time would be likely to generate a clearer consensus.

It is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the discussion to sway its outcome; such meatpuppet comments may be ignored. They are not removed, but may be tagged with {{spa}}, noting that a user "has made few or no other edits". In extreme cases, a deletion debate can be semi-protected.

It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution.

• Where to find them: There are separate processes for articles, categories, files, redirects, templates, and everything else.
• How to do this: Follow the instructions at the top of the relevant process page.
• If you disagree: Go to the relevant process page and explain why you disagree. Do not remove the tag from the page. For more information on this process, read the guide to deletion.
• Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and there is no consensus or the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.

The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should be done only when there is consensus to delete. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate. In certain circumstances, poorly-attended deletion discussion may be treated as proposed deletions (PRODs).

Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no clear consensus to keep may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed. If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well-known or less-known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, then the closing editor may generally treat the nomination as a PROD.

If an article isn't acceptable in mainspace, it can be moved to the draft namespace; and if it sits there without being worked on for six months, it will be eligible for speedy deletion.

If you believe that a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or that a deletion discussion was improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you may be able to request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the administrator who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care.

If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (which applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available.

The deletion review process is not decided solely by head count but by consensus. The review normally lasts for seven days, sometimes longer if the outcome is unclear.

Overturned deletions may go to a deletion discussion if someone still wishes to delete and chooses to nominate.

• Where to find them: Wikipedia:Deletion review
• How to do this: Follow the instructions at the top of the page.
• If you disagree: Go to the review page and explain why you disagree.
• Renominations: As with deletion discussions, a certain amount of time should pass between repeated requests for deletion review, and these requests should be carefully considered in light of policy. Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly.

In the case of pages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions, undeletion may be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. This serves two primary functions: the restoration of content deleted without discussion, and the userfication of content that is unfit for restoration. Requests for undeletion should be used to appeal most instances of proposed deletion and some speedy deletions. However, appeals of the outcomes of deletion discussions and other deletion matters requiring community review should be made at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Be aware that pages restored to articlespace may immediately be subject to a deletion discussion.

• Where to find them: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• How to do this: Follow the instructions at the top of the page.
• If you disagree: Take the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review
• Renominations: Unlike deletion discussions, there is no suggested waiting period between requests, although requests that have been declined should not be resubmitted unless circumstances such as undeletion norms or the motivation for undeletion have changed.

• Issues that are on the wrong process (e.g., templates on the article-deletion page) are simply moved to the proper one.
• A page on deletion review should not be listed on a deletion discussion page until the review closes, and a page on a deletion discussion page should not be listed on deletion review until the discussion closes.
• Deletion discussion trumps proposed deletion, so for a page listed on both, deletion discussion takes precedence.
• Pages that meet the criteria for speedy deletion can be deleted regardless of other circumstances. If a page on a deletion debate is speedied, the debate is closed.
• If it is doubtful whether a page is or is not speedily deletable, a deletion discussion takes precedence. In practice, this means that a page that had a deletion discussion resulting in "keep" or "no consensus" should not be speedily deleted, although some criteria are exempt from this rule.
• Pages that violate copyright can be deleted regardless of circumstances or earlier discussion.

Because many deleted articles are found to contain defamatory or other legally suspect material, deleted pages are not permitted to be generally viewed. However, they remain in the database (at least temporarily) and are accessible to administrators, along with their edit history unless they are oversighted, a form of enhanced deletion which, unlike normal deletion, expunges information from any form of usual access even by administrators. Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request.

From time to time, a discussion will have its content hidden from view based on the judgment of the community, an administrator, or another functionary. This generally is not done except under rare circumstances, such as where public view of the discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation. To avoid having such text in the most recent version and thus being indexed by search engines, the debate will be blanked out of courtesy. For deletion discussions, the entire debate can be replaced with the {{xfd-privacy}} template. When either courtesy blanking or xfd-blanking is used, the actual content remains accessible via the edit history. In more serious cases, the entire history of the page may be deleted. Courtesy blanking, history blanking, or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed only after due consideration.

On occasion, pages in the project namespace, such as requests for adminship and requests for arbitration, will be blanked as a courtesy, for reasons similar to those outlined above.

How to do this: Remove all text from the subpage and then add {{subst:Courtesy blanked}}; for deletion discussions, use {{subst:xfd-privacy|article|result}} with the correct parameters.

It is possible to delete some parts of a page's history, while leaving the current revision of the page intact, so that readers are unaware of the partial deletion (unless they attempt to visit a deleted old page revision). Administrators have access to the Revision Deletion tool, which makes it possible for them to remove selected old revisions of a page (and/or edit summaries or user names). The Revision Deletion policy strictly covers the circumstances in which this is permitted.

Revision Deletion replaces the previous method of selective undeletion, which involved deleting the entire page and then selectively undeleting/restoring revisions. Selective undeletion still has a few valid uses that Revision Deletion cannot cover (such as complex history merges). However, due to its relative lack of transparency and poor efficiency, selective undeletion is no longer used to remove revisions from page histories.