Deletion of a Wikipedia page removes the complete page (and all previous versions) from public view. Deletion happens when a page is unsuitable, unhelpful, or does not meet the required criteria. Two further deletion processes exist to address undesirable material that may have been added to a page or visible in a log. The deletion policy explains when deletion is acceptable.
This page explains the processes available, and how deletion discussions work.
You may have come here because a deletion notice of some kind was added to an article that you wrote. Please read this guide to see what happens now and how you can be involved in the decision.
Any user may suggest deletion of a page for good cause. There are three processes available for doing this:
If specific criteria are met, pages may be deleted summarily via the speedy deletion process.
If these criteria are not met but the deletion is expected to be uncontroversial, a notice of proposed deletion (PROD) may be used, which results in deletion if no other editor objects.
In all other cases, a "deletion discussion" takes place. This article deletion process is known as "articles for deletion" (AfD). Non-article deletions have similar processes.
Undesirable text can be removed by anyone by editing the page. However, the text will remain publicly accessible in the article history. If this is unacceptable, then an administrator can permanently delete the content, and it will only be visible to administrators. This is called "revision deletion"; to request it, see how to request revision deletion.
A form of extreme deletion known as Oversight also exists, which is operated by a very few specially authorized users. Users with Oversight access can often remove certain serious privacy-breaching and defamatory material so that even administrators cannot see the material. This is requested by email via requests for oversight.
A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality, but text that does not conform to any of the remaining three policies is usually removed from Wikipedia, either by removing a passage or section of an otherwise satisfactory article or by removing an entire article if nothing can be salvaged.
When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly.
Other kinds of pages
A list of similar processes for other kinds of pages, including user pages, templates, categories, and redirects, is here.
General advice
Pages in user space
If the page is in your own user space (i.e. starts with "User:YourName/", then you can request immediate deletion of the page at any time. Simply edit the page and put the template {{db-u1}} at the top of the page. An administrator will see that the page is in your own user space and delete it.
User talk subpages, with names beginning "User talk:YourName/"), can normally be deleted in the same way, but your main user talk page, named simply "User talk:YourName") with nothing else on the end, can't be deleted except under very exceptional circumstances, nor can any page which was your user talk page but which has been moved to a new title.
Please do not take it personally
Please remember that the deletion process is about the appropriateness of the article for inclusion in Wikipedia. A deletion nomination is not a rejection of the author or an attack on their value as a member of the Wikipedia community. Therefore, please do not take it personally if an article you've contributed to is nominated for deletion.
Over time, Wikipedians have invested a great deal of thought in the question of what may and may not be included in the encyclopedia. The cardinal article policies mentioned above form the core requirements for textual contributions to the mainspace. However, some Wikipedians have also written a number of standards and guidelines that are intended to provide guidance in specific areas; note that such guidelines cannot supersede the requirements of the above policies. Please take the time to review the standards Wikipedians abide by in evaluating content.
Please remember that AFD is a busy and repetitive place. The people who volunteer to work the AFD process may seem terse, gruff and abrupt. They are not (usually) being intentionally rude. We value civility and always try to assume good faith. However, often over a hundred articles are nominated for deletion each day. Experienced Wikipedians have been through thousands of deletion discussions and have read and thought through many of the same arguments many times before. For speed, some employ shorthands (described in the § Shorthands section below) rather than typing out the same reasoning and arguments again and again. They are trying to be efficient, not rude.
A sockpuppet is an account created by a vandal or bad-faith contributor in an attempt to bias the deletion decision process. A close variation is the "meatpuppet", people recruited from outside Wikipedia to try to alter the result of a discussion (for example, if your article about a web forum is up for deletion and you post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Because these tactics are common, comments by new users in deletion discussions may sometimes be viewed with suspicion. These users are difficult to distinguish from legitimate new users who are interested in improving the project. If someone notes that you are a new user, please take it in the spirit it was intended—a fact to be weighed by the closing admin, not an attack on the person.
The deletion decision is ultimately made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. Civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of the doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. Verifiablefacts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process.
You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).
There are, however, a few restrictions upon how you may edit an article:
You must not blank the article (unless it is a copyright infringement).
You must not modify or remove the Articles for deletion notice (AfD notice).
You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community.
Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator).
Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another page unilaterally before the debate closes. Such action may cause contention, extra process steps, and additional administrative work if undoing any copying is necessary. If you wish to merge or copy material, it is preferable to offer a specific proposal in the deletion discussion, negotiate with the other participants, and wait for the discussion to be closed. Even if the article is ultimately deleted, you can ask the closing administrator for a copy of the material to reuse, and the administrator can also advise you on any further steps that you may need to perform in order to reuse the content.
Deletion of articles from Wikipedia occurs through one of four processes.
So-called speedy deletion involves the scrutiny of only a few people before an article is deleted. The allowable criteria for speedy-deletion are deliberately very narrow. The list of candidates for speedy deletion can be viewed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.
Another quick method is the use of proposed deletion: simply add {{subst:prod|reason goes here}} to the top of the article. This is meant for articles where the deletion is believed to be uncontroversial, yet does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. A proposed deletion can be contested by any user by removing the {{prod}} tag within seven days, and if anyone still wants the article deleted the full Articles for deletion process is required.
Articles which do not meet the narrow criteria for speedy deletion and whose deletion is (or might be) contested are discussed by the community through the Articles for deletion (AfD) process.
Check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion. Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AfD.
Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.
Consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content.
Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.
If an article content happens to fit any of our sister wikis, consider copying it there before proceeding. You can replace an article with a soft redirect to a sister wiki in some cases.
Investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.
First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. See WP:Before.
Check the "what links here" link to see how the article is being used within Wikipedia.
Check interwiki links to pages "in other languages" which may provide additional material for translation.
Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted.
Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process, as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion", below). If this is the case, consider creating a user account.
After reviewing the above section, if you still think the article should be deleted, you must nominate it and open the AfD discussion. Nomination is a three-stage process. Please carefully follow the instructions on the Articles for deletion page. You must perform all three stages of the process (they are listed under the single page instructions). Nominations follow a very specific format because we transclude the discussion page onto a consolidated list of deletion discussions. This makes it more efficient for other participants to find the discussion and to determine if they have anything relevant to add. Incomplete nominations may be discarded or ignored. If you need help, ask.
It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:Adw|Article title}}.
To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms.
Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate.
If recommending that an article be speedily deleted, please give the criterion or criteria that it meets, such as "A7" or "biography not asserting importance".
Anyone can make a nomination, though anonymous users cannot complete the process without help from a logged-in user. The nomination, however, must be in good faith. Nominations that are clearly vandalism may be discarded. Anonymous users cannot complete the process, as they are technically prohibited from creating new pages.
Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations. (Some nominations are performed by experienced users on behalf of others, either because they are inexperienced with the AfD process or because the deletion recommendation was the result of a separate discussion.)
Unlike speedy deletion, which can potentially involve just a single editor, AfD involves multiple editors. The purpose of this is in part to ensure that articles are not erroneously deleted or kept. Editors are not expected to know everything. AfD is designed to place "multiple layers of swiss cheese" (see the Swiss Cheese model) in the process, to reduce the possibility of an erroneous conclusion being reached. Other editors can find things that one editor has overlooked or not been aware of. This process does not work when editors merely echo the rationales of others, and do not double-check things for themselves. The best way to help AfD to continue to work is always to check things out for yourself before presenting a rationale. (For example: If the assertion is that the subject is unverifiable, have a look yourself to see whether you can find sources that other editors may have missed.)
Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion. The author of the article can make their case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin. Please bear in mind that administrators will discount any obviously bad faith contributions to the discussion when closing the discussion. On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous.
Formatting
For consistency, the form for the discussion is a bulleted list below the nomination text. You may indent the discussion by using multiple bullets. Mixing of bullets and other forms of indentation is discouraged because it makes the discussion much harder for subsequent readers to follow.
Sign any contribution that you make by adding ~~~~ to the comment. Unsigned contributions may be discounted at the discretion of the volunteer who closes the discussion.
Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of recommendations, however much you may think that this helps the process. Both the context and the order of the comments are essential to understanding the intents of contributors, both at the discussion closure and during the discussion. Refactoring actually makes the job of making the decision at the closure of discussion much harder, not easier.
Behavior
Always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows administrators to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin.
The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. Individuals will express strong opinions and may even "vote". To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not.
Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves.
Experienced AfD participants re-visit discussions that they have already participated in. They are looking for new facts, evidence or changes to the article which might change their initial conclusion. In this situation, strike through your previous comment using <s>...</s> (if you are changing your mind) or to explicitly comment "no change" to confirm that you have considered the new evidence but remain unconvinced.
It is acceptable to correct the formatting in order to retain consistency with the bulleted indentation. It is also acceptable to note the contribution history of a new user or suspected sockpuppet as an aid to the closing admin.
If, in a deletion discussion, you refer to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, you are responsible for making a good faith effort to represent those policies or guidelines accurately. Policies and guidelines reflect widespread community consensus. If you disagree with a guideline, you should raise your concern on the guideline's talk page; contradicting or misrepresenting policies and guidelines in deletion discussions is disruptive of the discussion process.
After seven days, links to discussions are automatically moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current discussions to the below section Old discussions. Depending on the backlog, a discussion may remain open for several more days, during which it is still acceptable to add comments to the discussion. A volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article.
The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached.
The decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merge" or "redirect". In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. A second deletion discussion is unnecessary.
The discussion is preserved for future reference in accordance with the deletion process, both for consultation as non-binding precedent and for determining when a previously deleted article has been re-created. In some rare cases in the past, deletion discussions have been blanked as a courtesy, leaving the history available (example: the 2005 deletion discussion for Rational objectivism; however, discussions are no longer indexed by web search engines.) The closing admin will also perform any necessary actions to carry out the decision. If the consensus is to merge the article and the merger would be non-trivial, it is acceptable for the admin to only begin the proposed article merger process by use of appropriate templates (if consensus is not clear on merger target, use {{Afd-merge required}}; if merger target is clear, use both {{Afd-merge to}} on source page and {{Afd-merge from}} on destination talk page).
Delete means simply that the user thinks the article should be deleted. They may state reasons or simply leave it at this statement. Because the deletion process is a discussion and not a vote, simply stating "delete" without any further comment is discouraged.
Keep means simply that the user thinks the article should not be deleted. They may state reasons or simply leave it at this statement. Because the deletion process is a discussion and not a vote, simply stating "keep" without any further comment is discouraged.
Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history).
Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect.
Userfy/Draftify is a recommendation to move the article to either a subpage of the author's user page or the Draft namespace. Wikipedia allows greater leniency in the userspace than the main article space. The resultant redirect is always deleted.
Outcome summary
This table summarizes the end state of several aspects of a page: its page history, the article itself, its status as a stand-alone article as opposed to a redirect, and how much content is retained.
While editors are encouraged to discuss the deletion, a bolded AfD recommendation ("Delete", "Keep", etc.) should be left only once by an editor in a deletion discussion unless the previous one is struck. Editors may leave multiple recommendations as alternatives when unsure, for instance "Merge or redirect".
If you disagree with the consensus
The consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is generally respected, and should not be overturned or disregarded lightly. Sometimes, however, users disagree with the consensus opinion arrived at in the AFD quite strongly. If you disagree with the consensus opinion, it is a good idea to first try to understand why the community made its decision. You may find that its reasoning was sensible. However, if you remain unsatisfied with the consensus decision, there are a few options open to you.
If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections; if it isn't, you can renominate it for deletion. If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted.
If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it, pay careful attention to the reasons that were proffered for deletion. Overcome the objections, and show that your new, improved work meets Wikipedia article policies. It can help to write down the reasons you think the article belongs on Wikipedia on the article's discussion page. If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD.
Finally, if you are unsatisfied with the outcome of an AFD because you believe that a procedural issue interfered with the AFD or with the execution of its decision, you can appeal the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review, where deletion decisions are reviewed by the community over a period of around seven days. The review has the authority to overturn AFD decisions. Note, however, that by long tradition and consensus, deletion review only addresses procedural problems that may have hampered an AFD. For example, if the participants of an AFD arrived at one decision but the closing administrator wrongly executed another, Deletion Review can opt to overturn the administrator's action. It must be emphasized that the review exists to address procedural (or "process") problems in AFDs that either made it difficult for the community to achieve a consensus, or prevented a consensus that was achieved from being correctly applied. It does not exist to override community consensus. If an AFD decision was arrived at fairly and applied adequately, it is unlikely that the decision will be overturned at the Review. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion review.
Can I recreate an article that was deleted in the past?
Articles that have been deleted in the past generally should not be re-created unless the reason for deletion is specifically addressed (for information on determining the reason why the page was deleted, see Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?). If the article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, you should read the full deletion discussion before re-creating. Articles that are re-created without any substantial changes can be re-deleted immediately (see CSD G4). This applies regardless of whether you wrote the original article. If you are uncertain whether your new article will adequately address the original reasons for deletion, you may wish to create a draft version of it in your sandbox and then request feedback at deletion review. Some example scenarios:
If an article was deleted because it infringes copyright (G12), it may be recreated if you rewrite the article entirely in your own words. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If an article was deleted because it was advertising or promotion (G11), it may be recreated if it is rewritten from a neutral point of view, avoiding any promotional language.
If an article was deleted because it included no assertion of significance (A7), it may be recreated if you include an explanation of why the subject is important or significant.
If an article was deleted because the subject was not notable, but since that time many more independent reliable sources discussing them have been found or published, you can re-create the article if you include these new additional sources.
Articles deleted for any of the following reasons may be re-created as a new, completely rewritten article at any time:
patent nonsense (G1), vandalism (G3), test page (G2), author requested deletion (G7), attack page (G10), no context (A1), no content (A3)
In some cases, articles may be deleted for erroneous reasons. For example, the deletion summary may claim that the article included no assertion of significance, but in fact the article did explain why the subject is significant. In this case, contact the administrator who deleted it, or request undeletion at deletion review.
Note that if you copy and paste text from a deleted article (that you did not write yourself) into a new article, you should visit Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen to request an administrator to repair the history and correctly give credit to all authors. Articles that are restored via deletion review will automatically include the original history.
Articles that are deleted by the Wikimedia Foundation for legal reasons (see Wikipedia:Office actions) should never be re-created without the Foundation's explicit approval.
Shorthands
As discussed above, experienced Wikipedians use specialized jargon in an effort to communicate efficiently. Often, if a Wikipedian uses capitalized letter abbreviations, you can find what they are talking about by affixing WP: in front of their capitalized abbreviation and searching for an article of that name. "NPOV", for example, can be found at WP:NPOV. Be sure to match capitalization. Other examples of shorthand in general include:
Articles for deletion or AFD is the place on Wikipedia where people discuss whether an article should be deleted. It includes BEFORE which states that alternatives to deletion must be considered before deletion. It also includes Alternatives to deletion or ATD which outlines the alternatives to deletion.
Biographies of living persons or BLP is a policy which outlines the rules around adding information on living people to Wikipedia. It includes BLP1E.
Copyvio or CV means that the user thinks the article is a copyright violation. In general, the copyvio deletion process takes precedence over the AFD process.
-cruft (for example, "fancruft", "gamecruft" or "forumcruft") is shorthand for "This article is trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, pop singer, web forum, etc."
Delete means simply that the user thinks the article should be deleted. They may state reasons or simply leave it at this statement. Because the deletion process is a discussion and not a vote, simply stating "delete" without any further comment is discouraged.
Deprodded means the article was proposed for deletion (or "prodded", see below), but someone contested this by removing the {{prod}} message from the article.
Draftify is a recommendation to move the article to draft space. Wikipedia allows somewhat greater leniency in the draft space than the main article space. The resultant redirect is always deleted.
Essay and original research (OR) are opinion shorthand for "this article contravenes the no original research policy or is an essay that promotes a particular point of view, contravening the neutral point of view policy". Both policies are fundamental Wikipedia policies.
Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. See WP:EDIR for a directory of essays.
Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
Keep means simply that the user thinks the article should not be deleted. They may state reasons or simply leave it at this statement. Because the deletion process is a discussion and not a vote, simply stating "keep" without any further comment is discouraged.
Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It means the editor thinks the article content is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history).
Neologism or protologism means that the user considers this article to be about a word or phrase that is not well-established enough to merit a Wikipedia article. This could be a neologism (a recent word) or a protologism (a brand-new word coined in a small community but not used outside it).
Notability or WP:N is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.
Notability (events) or NEVENT outlines the notability criteria for events, it includes Event inclusion criteria also called EVENTCRIT which outlines the inclusion criteria for events.
Non-notable or nn mean that the user thinks the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines because it is an obscure topic that is not documented by multiple independent reliable sources.
Per nomination, per nominator, or simply per nom means the user agrees with and wishes to express the same viewpoint as the user who nominated the article for deletion.
per <user> means that the user agrees with the reasoning or comments of the other user named, who will have commented earlier in the discussion, and wishes to express the same opinion.
Policy, pages that have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow.
POV means that the user considers the article's title and/or the article's mere existence to be inherently biased and to violate Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy.
POV fork is shorthand for "This article is on the same topic as an existing article and was created in an attempt to evade the spirit of WP:NPOV."
Protect, or salt the Earth ("salt") means that the user thinks that the article, if deleted, should be protected against recreation. This is for cases where the article may be persistently re-created.
Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect.
Smerge is a "slight merge" or "selective merge", and is used when a user thinks the article's topic deserves mention in another article, but doesn't think that all of the information is needed (or wanted). This is a recommendation for merging the essentials of an article, but not the whole thing.
Speedy delete, Speedy or CSD mean that the user thinks the article qualifies for one of the narrow speedy deletion criteria. If there are no objections, the deletion discussion may be closed early. If the decision is contested, the AFD discussion continues. See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion.
Speedy keep is rarely but thoroughly used. It implies that the user thinks the nomination was in bad-faith (vandalism, disruption, edits by banned users, and so forth) and that the deletion discussion can be closed early. See also Wikipedia:Speedy keep. It is sometimes, even more rarely, used for cases where a discussion has led to all parties being in favour of keeping. However, that is usually not indicated by a third party coming along and using a shorthand.
Too soon or TOOSOON is an essay (not a policy). This indicates that the subject of the article might be notable in the future, but isn't yet.
TNT or blow it up and start over is an essay (not a policy) that suggests articles should be deleted even if the topic is notable if the content is not repairable.
Transwiki is a recommendation to copy the article to a sister project in Wikimedia (such as Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikibooks, or one of the foreign language projects) and remove it from Wikipedia, either by deleting it or redirecting it to another article. It has also been used to recommend a transfer to a wiki aimed at a more specific audience (for example, Wookieepedia for Star Wars topics, WikiFur for furry fandom topics).
Userfy is a recommendation to move the article to the author's user page. Wikipedia allows somewhat greater leniency in the userspace than the main article space. The resultant redirect is always deleted.
Vanity suggests that an article was created to promote the author or some topic associated with the author. This term is discouraged because it is easy to interpret as an attack against the author, and has caused problems for the Wikimedia Foundation.[3]
WP:POINT refers to the rule that one should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
Without prejudice. When used in Wikipedia AfD debates, it suggests that the result of this particular debate does not preclude a particular option (for example, without prejudice of re-creation) and should NOT be used as an example in other and future AfD debates due to its unique situation or issues.
Withdraw of the deletion proposal by the nominator, usually because the article has been improved enough to address the initial concerns, or because the nominator changed their mind after seeing the counter arguments.
As a courtesy, when dealing with articles written by new contributors, one should avoid shorthand to facilitate their learning Wikipedia policy and improve their future contributions.
Miscellaneous advice
If you are the nominator of an article for deletion, your desire to delete it is assumed (unless you specify that you are neutral, and nominating for other reasons). Because of this, you do not get to !vote (that is, for the second time) in your own AfD.
If you expect the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia (perhaps because the article is linked from some visible place outside Wikipedia), or if you notice this happening, you might want to insert the {{Not a ballot}} template into it.
If you are not logged in, you will not be able to create the AfD discussion page. You could either log in, sign up, or request an account first, or request that a logged in user complete the nomination on the article talk page.
It is recommended that you describe the steps you have taken to check that your nomination is appropriate, including any search for reliable sources you have done. This may avoid duplication of effort and prevent your nomination from being labelled as spurious or thoughtless.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.