For the general list, see list of policies and guidelines.  This is a list of existing policies that can be used either to support a deletion  proposal (prod) or nomination, or in an attempt to prevent deletion in an existing proposal.  This is not a place to create new policies, or to amend existing ones. Edits to this list are limited to adding those not previously listed, removing those that have been revoked, updating those that have been amended, or modifying the language, style, or other details in the manner in which this has been written.  List of policies and guidelines Favoring deletion The following is a list of policies and guidelines that can be used for making one's case in proposing a page for deletion. Please note that:  Prod and WP:AfD are only suitable if an entire page has one of these issues and cannot likely be improved. If only part of a page has such an issue, and the remainder does not, only that section should be tagged and/or removed. Criteria for speedy deletion are not listed here; they are listed on that page. Before proposing a page for deletion, see WP:BEFORE for alternatives. For reasons to delete a category, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization. For reasons to delete an image or file, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For reasons to delete a redirect, see WP:R#DELETE. For reasons to delete a template, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons to delete a template  Policy/Guideline nameShortcutsSummaryAdvertisingWP:NOTADVERTISINGArticles that advertise. If advertising is blatant, can be marked as . If article can be salvaged by changing writing style, should be marked .Case study, not aWP:NOTCASEArticles examining the relationship between factor A and factor B when not found in an  y sourcesContent forksWP:CFORKWP:COATRACKWP:POVFORKSubjects split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subjectCrystal ballWP:CRYSTALWP:FUTUREThe showcasing of unreferenced planned events, products, or releasesDirectoryWP:NOTDIRECTORYWP:NOTDIRThe listing of directory-like information, particularly external or totally unlinkedDictionary entriesWP:NOTDICDEF for listing on WP:NOTWP:NAD for full page*Pages that exclusively define the title*Lists of dictionary entries, definitions, or slang or jargon guidesExternal linksWP:NOTLINKCollections of external links not providing relevant information to a notable subjectForumsWP:NOTFORUMWP:NOTAFORUMWP:NOT#CHATForums or chats (other than discussions on improving the encyclopedia itself)GuidesWP:NOTGUIDEPages providing guide-like informationHow-toWP:HOWTOWP:NOTHOWWP:NOTHOWTOPages providing how-to instructions, other than how to edit Wikipedia in project space. (Please note that many articles with how-to content can be m o dified to encyclopedia style. It may be more appropriate simply to place a  tag in these situations.)Internal linksWP:LINKFARMExclusive collections of internal links, except for allowable lists and disambiguation pagesJournalismWP:NOT#JOURNALISMFirst-hand accounts of breaking newsLyricsWP:NOT#LYRICSPages exclusively providing lyrics to songsNeologismsWP:NEOArticles about newly-coined wordsNeutrality (unfixable)WP:NPOVWhere the nature of the article is such to make it inherently non-neutral.NewsWP:NOT#NEWSPAPERRoutine news coverageNotability, general guidelineWP:GNGGeneral requirements for a subject to be notableNotability, not temporaryWP:NTEMPWP:SBSTTemporary, brief, short-lived coverage of a subject in reliable sourcesNotability, verifiable evidence requiredWP:NRVENotability requires that verifiable evidence be providedOff-topicWP:COATRACKWhere an article, ostensibly on one topic, actually is a content fork of another.One eventWP:ONEEVENTWP:BLP1ESubjects receiving coverage for a single eventOpi n ionsWP:NOTOPINIONThe publishing of one's personal opinionsOriginal researchWP:ORWP:NORThe publishing of writings or interpretations that have not previously been publishedPlotsWP:PLOTPlot-only articles (if no sources exist to expand the article further, such as reviews or sourced analysis)PromotionWP:PROMOTIONArticles promoting a causePropaganda, advocacy, and recruitmentWP:NOTADVOCATEThe promotion of a subjectScandalsWP:NOTSCANDALScandals or gossipScientific journal, not aWP:NOT PAPERWP:NOT PAPERSInformation written in the style of a scientific journalSelf-promotionWP:PROMOTIONArticles about oneself (autobiographies) or that promote oneself or one's causeSoapbox, not aWP:SOAPWP:NOTSOAPBOXPropaganda or advertisingStatistics, Wikipedia is not forWP:NOT#STATSExcessive listing of statistics or the exclusive use of statistics to source an articleSynthesisWP:SYNWP:SYNTHWP:SYNTHESISA conclusion put together based on if A is true, and B is true, then C must be true when this is not sourcedTextbook, not aWP:NOTTEXTBOOKInformation written purely to teach subject matterThings made up in one day, not forWP:NFTWP:MADEUPCreations of an individual, group, or community that have not been formally  p ublishedTravel guide, not aWP:NOTTRAVELInformation written to aid the traveler  Favoring keeping or merging The following are a list of inclusion guidelines that may be useful to help in keeping an article: Most of the guidelines listed describe reasons why a subject is worthy of inclusion. While failure to meet one of these guidelines can be used to support a deletion case, this can be negated if the subject meets the inclusion guidelines under another. A deletion case may also be negated by arguing that the policy/guideline cited in favor of deletion is incorrect or not applicable given the circumstances, providing sources (when the article lacks them), or by making other changes to the article to address the issue.  See Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions for more possible arguments to make your case.  Policy/guideline nameShortcutsSummaryAcademicsWP:ACADEMICWP:TEACHERWP:PROFESSORNotability requirements for people based on academic achievementsAlbumsWP:NALBUMSWhen albums can have standalone articles or when they must be mentioned in the article about the artistArtistsWP:ARTISTNotability requirements for artistsAthletesWP:ATHLETENotability requirements for athletesAuthorsWP:AUTHORNotability requirements for authors BandsWP:BANDNotability requirements for bandsBooksWP:BKNotability requirements for books to have standalone articles, and when they must be mentioned in the article about the authorClubsWP:CLUBNotability requirements for clubs and non-commercial organizationsCompaniesWP:COMPANYWP:CORPNotability requirements for companies, commercial enterprises, and other for-profit businessesComposersWP:COMPOSERNotability requirements for composersCreative professionalsWP:CREATIVENotability requirements for creative professionalsCriminal actsWP:N/CANotability guidelines for criminal actsDiplomatsWP:DIPLOMATNotability requirements for diplomatsEntertainersWP:ENTERTAINERWP:ENTNotability requirements for entertainersFilmsWP:NOTFILMWP:NFNotability requirements for filmsFilms, futureWP:NFFNotability requirements for future filmsMusicWP:MUSICNotability requirements for musicNotability, general guidelineWP:GNGGeneral requirements for a subject to be notableNumbersWP:NUMBERNotability requirements for articles about numbersOrganizationsWP:ORGNotability requirements for non-profit organizationsPeopleWP:BIOWP:PEOPLENotability requirements for peoplePoliticiansWP:POLITICIANSNotability requirements for politiciansPornographic actorsWP:PORNBIOWP:PORNSTARNotability requirements for pornographic actorsProductsWP:P RODU CTNotability requirements for products to have standalone articles separate from the articles on their manufacturerSongsWP:NSONGSNotability requirements for songs to have standalone articles (separate from the album or the artist)  Useful essays (and parts of essays) The following are a list of essays that pertain to inclusion and exclusion. While these are not policies or guidelines, citing them in a deletion debate may at times help in arguing one's case. When citing an essay, it is important to keep in mind that essays can be written by a single editor, can be edited just like an article, and does not require any further consensus. Therefore, if one is used to support deletion or to keep an article proposed for deletion, a good explanation should be given as to why one believes it supports his/her case.  Essay nameShortcutsSummaryAge, notability ofWP:OLDAGEThe age of a subject alone, no matter how old, does not render it automatically notableBare notabilityWP:BAREWP:MINIMUMArticles that just barely meet notability requirements may be viewed as having borderline notability, and can possibly face deletionBombardmentWP:BOMBARDAbout going overboard with references that may not be needed just to make an article look notableCares, no oneWP:CARESSome subjects are of interest to few. They may or may not be notable. But being of interest to few in itself does not automatically make the subject not notable.Chance, give an articleWP:CHANCEDon't propose an article for deletion if it hasn't had a chanceClonesWP:CLONEWikipedia clones are not reliable sources (and why)CoatrackWP:COATWP:COATRACKAbout articles that are titled to describe one topic but focus on another, often to mask the lack of notabilityDeadline, noWP:DEADLINEThere is no deadline to make any edits to any articles or to finish any projectDemolish, don'tWP:DEMOLISHDon't demolish the house while it's still being builtDescribe withinWP:DESCRIBEWP:WITHINIf little exists about a subject, it may be better described within another article than in a standalone oneDislikeWP:IDLDislike for an article is not sufficient to delete itEditing, article has noneWP:NOEFFORTJust because no one has worked on an article (including a stub) does not mean it should be deletedExistence ≠ NotabilityWP:ENNWP:EXISTENCEJust because a subject exists in this world does not mean it is automatically notableFameWP:FAMEThere are differing degrees of fame, and not all guarantee notabilityGarage bandsWP:GARAGENo one wants to see an article on Wikipedia about your non-notable garage bandGoogle hitsWP:GHITSA high number of Google hits does not make an article notable, and a low number does not make it not notableHarm, noWP:NOHARMWP:HARMLESSSaying the existence of an article will do no harm is not grounds for keepingInclusion, not an indicator of notabilityWP:INNJust because Wikipedia already has an article does not mean the subject is notableIndependent sourcesWP:ISWP:INDYDescribes the value of having sources independent of the subjectInherent notabilityWP:IHNWP:INHERENTSome topics are presumed to be inherently notable (meaning all subjects within the category are surely notable)InsignificantWP:INSIGNIFICANTCertain minor details are considered to be insignificantLeader, follow theWP:LEADERMake your own judgment rather than being influenced by the way others (usually the first) comment in a discussionLiar, liar, your pants are on fireWP:LIARFrowns upons calling others liars in deletion discussionsLikeWP:LIKE"Liking" an article is not sufficient to keep itMasking the lack of notabilityWP:MASKTaking steps to hide the fact that the subject of an article is not really notableMyths and facts about deletionWP:MYTHSFalse beliefs held about deletion debunkedNewspapers, coverage in manyWP:NEWSBRIEFWP:109PAPERSShort-term coverage in a massive number of newspapers does not render automatic notabilityNoble causeWP:NOBLECAUSE Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble causeNot notable, justWP:JNNSimply stating that a subject is not notable is not sufficient to get it deleted on this basisNothingWP:NOTHINGresponse to WP:EVERYTHINGOther stuff existsWP:OSEJust because a similar type of article exists does not mean it makes others automatically notableOverzealous deletionWP:OVERZEALOUSWP:ZEALThe practice of "dying to" get an article deletedOwn site, subject'sWP:OWNSITEArticles cannot be referenced by nothing more than the subject's own sitePhrases, commonWP:COMMONPHRASEDon't create an article that is just a dictionary entry for a common phrasePolicy, just aWP:JUSTAPOLICYStating a policy only without an accompanying statement is not sufficient to make one's casePoorly written articlesWP:UGLYBeing poorly written is not grounds for deletionPopularityWP:POPULARITYBeing popular does not render a subject automatically notablePotential, not just current stateWP:POTENTIALWP:NOTIMELIMITAn article should be judged based on what it can grow into one day, not what it already isRankWP:RANKWP:NUMBER1WP:ONLYHaving a high rank in some category, being the best, or being the only one of something does not mean automatic notabilityRecentismWP:RECENTWriting articles or information based on current events with the lack of consideration of their importance in the futureRun-of-the-millWP:MILLThere are subjects that have verifiable information, but so many of them exist that it is not practical to have articles on all of themSingle source, articles withWP:ONESOURCEThe pitfalls  of  articles having a single sourceTalent, notabilityWP:TALENTBeing talented does not mean being automatically notableThird party sourcesWP:THIRDPARTYWP:3PARTYDescribes the value of third-party sourcesUseful/uselessWP:USEFULWP:USELESSBeing judged as "useful" or "useless" is a matter of opinion, and therefore is not grounds for keeping or deletingVote, just aWP:JUSTAVOTE"Votes" of simply the words "keep" or "delete" do not make a case and are not counted in a deletion discussionWords, commonWP:COMMONWORDDon't create an article that is just a dictionary entry for a common word  Non-articles The guidelines in favor of keeping or deleting non-articles vary:  Categories Note: The shortcut for all of these is WP:CFDS.  Favoring deletion ReasonShortcutReasonUnpopulated categoriesWP:CFDS (C1)Categories that have been unpopulated for at least four days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, featured topics categories, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help). (Place  at the top of the page to prevent such categories from being deleted.)Speedy renaming or mergingWP:CFDS (C2)Typographic and spelling fixes, Capitalization fixes, Conversions from singular to plural (or vice versa), A rename bringing a category or categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, Expanding abbreviated country names, Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name, or Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en-dashes (or vice versa).Non-defining or trivial characteristicWP:OC#TRIVIACategories characterizing a non-notable trait of a subjectOpinion about a question or issueWP:OC#OPINIONCategorization based on personal opinionsSubjective inclusion criterionWP:OC#SUBJECTIVEAdjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterionArbitrary inclusion criterionWP:OC#ARBITRARYCategories that rank subjects by defined numbers (other than years)Trivial intersectionWP:OC#Trivial intersectionIntersections of two traits that are unrelatedIntersection by locationWP:OC#Intersection by locationSubjects subcategorized by geographical boundary, unless that boundary has relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristicsIntersections by ethnicity/religion/sexual orientationWP:OC#CATGRSNon-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientationNarrow intersectionWP:OC#NARROWIf an article is in "category A" and "category B", it does not follow that a "category A and B" has to be created for this article.Small with no potential for growthWP:OC#SMALLCategories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.Mostly-overlapping categoriesWP:OC#OVERLAPPINGUnrelated subjects with shared namesWP:OC#SHAREDNAMESCategories with subjects that coincidentally share the same nameEponymous categories for peopleWP:OC#EPONYMOUSCategories sharing names with people; allowed under certain circumstancesCandidates and nomineesWP:OC#CANDIDATESA candidate for public office, the possible next CEO of a certain corporation, a potential member of a sports team, an actor on the "short list" to play a role, or an award nomineeAward recipientsWP:OC#Award recipientsPeople can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category.Published listsWP:OC#TOPTENMagazines and books regularly publish lists of the "top 10" (or some other number) in any particular field. Such lists tend to be subjective and somewhat arbitrary. Some particularly well-known and unique lists such as the Billboard charts may constitute exceptions, although creating categories for them may risk violating the publisher's copyright or trademark.Venues by eventWP:OC#VENUESlocations by the events or event types that have been held therePerformers by performanceWP:OC#PERFPeople associated withWP:OC#ASSOCIATEDVaguely-named categories such as this is determining what degree or nature of "association" is necessary to qualify a person for inclusion in the category  Redirects Favoring keeping Note: The shortcut for all of these is WP:RFD#KEEP.  ReasonCriteria #ReasonPage history1They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name. Aid in finding similar title2They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links. Aid in searches3They aid searches on certain terms. Risk in breaking links4You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. Someone finds it useful5Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they  pr obably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Grammatical variation6The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.  Favoring deletion Note: The shortcut for all of these is WP:RFD#DELETE.  ReasonCriteria #ReasonDifficulty1The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.Confusion2The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.Abusive/Offensive3The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) Nonsense4The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange.Cross-namespace5It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exceptions to this rule are the "CAT:" and "MOS:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces". (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.) Broken6If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.Implausible7If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created. Move8If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. Controversial moves should be discussed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Expansion9If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect. Spam/Self-promotion10If the redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)   Templates Favoring deletion ReasonShortcutsSummaryNamespace violationThe template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance. Currently listed as criteria #1 favoring deletion.RedundanceThe template is redundant to a better-designed template. Currently listed as criteria #2 favoring deletion.Lack of useThe template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used. Currently listed as criteria #3 favoring deletion.Policy violationThe template violates a policy such as NPOV or CIVIL. Currently listed as criteria #4 favoring deletion.  আরো দেখুন উইকিপিডিয়া:অপসারণ প্রস্তাবনায় মন্তব্যের পূর্বে পঠিতব্য উইকিপিডিয়া:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes উইকিপিডিয়া:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions  বিষয়শ্রেণী:উইকিপিডিয়া কীভাবে করবেন Category:উইকিপিডিয়া অপসারণ Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines Category:Wikipedia discussion