এই অপসারণের প্রক্রিয়া মূলত উইকিপিডিয়ার একটি প্রক্রিয়া যেখানে কোন পাতা ও চিত্র অপসারণ অথবা রেখে দেয়ার ব্যাপারে সম্প্রদায়ের গৃহীত সিদ্ধান্তের বাস্তবায়ন এবং আলোচনার সংরক্ষণ করা হয়ে থাকে।  স্বভাবত, অপসারণ আলোচনায় ঐকমত্য প্রতিষ্ঠার মাধ্যমে কোনো পাতা অপসারণ করা হয়। সাধারণত, প্রশাসকগণ এই আলোচনার বন্ধের জন্য দায়বদ্ধ থাকেন; যদিও, অন্য ব্যবহারকারী সম্ভবত নির্দিষ্ট অবস্থার ভিত্তিতে আলোচনা বন্ধ করতে পারেন। তবে, একজন সম্পাদক যে কোন পাতা অপসারণের প্রস্তাবনা জানাতে পারেন, যদি তিনি বিশ্বাস করেন যে এটি অপসারণের জন্য একটি অ-বিতর্কিত। কিছু কিছু ক্ষেত্রে, পাতাসমূহ সম্ভবত দ্রুত অপসারণ করা হতে পারে, যদি সেগুলো কঠোর মানদণ্ডের ঐক্যমত্য অনুযায়ী উপলব্ধ হয়ে থাকে।  টীকা: উইকিমিডিয়া ফাউন্ডেশন বোর্ড বা সিস্টেম অ্যাডমিনিস্ট্রেটরদের অফিস অ্যাকশন এবং ঘোষণা সম্প্রদায়ের ঐক্যমত্যের উপর অগ্রাধিকার নিতে পারে। বিশেষ করে কপিরাইট, আইনি সমস্যা বা সার্ভার লোড সম্পর্কিত বিষয়াদি হলে।  দ্রুত অপসারণ দ্রুত অপসারণ প্রক্রিয়াটি এমন পাতাগুলির ক্ষেত্রে প্রযোজ্য, যেগুলি দ্রুত অপসারণের জন্য অন্তত একটি মানদণ্ড পূরণ করে এবং শুধুমাত্র সেই ক্ষেত্রটি নির্দিষ্ট করে যেখানে প্রশাসকদের তাদের বিবেচনার ভিত্তিতে অপসারণ প্রস্তাবনার আলোচনা বাদ দিয়ে অবিলম্বে উইকিপিডিয়া পাতা বা মিডিয়া অপসারণের জন্য বিস্তৃত ঐক্যমত সমর্থন রয়েছে।  দ্রুত অপসারণ প্রক্রিয়ার মাধ্যমে একটি পৃষ্ঠা অপসারণের আগে, এটি দ্রুত অপসারণের জন্য অন্তত একটি মানদণ্ড পূরণ করে কিনা তা যাচাই করুন, পূর্ববর্তী সংস্করণটি ফিরিয়ে আনা এবং উদ্ধার করা সম্ভব হবে কিনা বা কাট-এবং-পেস্ট জড়িত কিনা তা মূল্যায়ন করতে এবং সেখানে একটি ছিল কিনা তা নির্ধারণ করতে পৃষ্ঠার ইতিহাস পরীক্ষা করুন এবং অন্যান্য তথ্য অনুসন্ধান করুন যা অপসারণের প্রয়োজন বা কারণকে প্রভাবিত করতে পারে:  প্রাথমিক সম্পাদনা সারাংশে পৃষ্ঠাটির উৎস বা কারণ সম্পর্কে তথ্য থাকতে পারে।  আলাপ পাতায় পূর্ববর্তী অপসারণ আলোচনার উল্লেখ করতে পারে বা পাতাটি অপসারণ না করার জন্য প্রাসঙ্গিক চলমান আলোচনা থাকতে পারে।  পৃষ্ঠার লগে পূর্ববর্তী অপসারণের তথ্য থাকতে পারে যা পৃষ্ঠাটিকে সুরক্ষা করার বা এটিকে রাখার নিশ্চয়তা দিতে পারে।  সংযোগকারী পৃষ্ঠাসমূহ দেখাতে পারে যে পৃষ্ঠাটি বিশ্বকোষের একটি সর্বদা উল্লেখ করা অংশ, অথবা অন্য অনুরূপ পৃষ্ঠাগুলি দেখাতে পারে যা অপসারণের অনুমতি দেয়। যে পৃষ্ঠাগুলিকে পুনরায় তৈরি করা উচিত নয়, অন্য পৃষ্ঠাগুলিতে (আলোচনা, সংরক্ষণাগার এবং ট্র্যাকিং পৃষ্ঠাগুলি ছাড়া) আগত সংযোগগুলি সরানো উচিত৷  যদি একটি পৃষ্ঠা দ্রুত অপসারণের জন্য উপযুক্ত না হয়, তাহলে দ্রুত অপসারণ ট্যাগটি সরানোর জন্য পৃষ্ঠাটিকে সম্পাদনা করতে হবে। এর ফলে, :বিষয়শ্রেণী:দ্রুত অপসারণের যোগ্য থেকে পৃষ্ঠাটি সরানো হবে। অপসারণের প্রস্তাবনা দেয়া ব্যবহারকারীকে বার্তা দেয়ার কথা মাথায় রাখতে পারেন।  দ্রুত অপসারণ প্রক্রিয়ার মাধ্যমে একটি পৃষ্ঠা অপসারণের সময়, অপসারণের সারাংশে কারণটি উল্লেখ করুন যাতে এটি অপসারণের লগে রেকর্ড করা হয়। অপসারণের সারাংশে পৃষ্ঠার বিষয়বস্তু উদ্ধৃত করা সহায়ক হতে পারে, কিন্তু কাজটি আক্রমণ সামগ্রী বা কপিরাইটযুক্ত পাঠ্যের জন্য কিছুতেই করা যাবেনা। কিছু ক্ষেত্রে, পাতাটির তৈরিকারীকে অপসারণের বিষয়ে অবহিত করা উপযুক্ত হবে৷  প্রস্তাবিত অপসারণ The proposed deletion process applies to articles that do not meet the stringent criteria for speedy deletion, but for which it is believed that deletion would be uncontroversial. In this process, an editor places a tag on the article, and any editor can remove the tag to save the page. If the tag remains after seven days, the page can be deleted. For instructions on handling articles that have been proposed for deletion, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Deletion.  অপসারণ আলোচনা The deletion discussion processes apply to pages which are formally nominated for deletion through an appropriate deletion discussion venue. Although the steps for closing deletion discussions vary from one deletion discussion venue to another, a few general principles apply at all venues.  কীভাবে একটি অপসারণের আলোচনা শুরু করবেন  এক বা একাধিক নিবন্ধ অপসারণ মনোনয়নের প্রক্রিয়া এখানে নিধারিত রয়েছে।  এছাড়াও এই প্রক্রিয়াটি ব্যাপকভাবে টুইংকেল ব্যবহার করে সহজেই সম্পাদন করা যায়, এটি একটি সফ্টওয়্যার প্যাকেজ যা সকল স্বয়ংনিশ্চিতকৃত ব্যবহারকারী ব্যবহার করতে পারেন।  ঐকমত্য  Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes.  Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. (While consensus can change, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.)  প্রচলিত ফলাফল  A deletion discussion may end with one of a number of distinct outcomes, with certain outcomes being more common at certain deletion discussion venues.  When considering closing a discussion, be aware that:   Other (non-standard) decisions, and "combinations", may sometimes be appropriate at the closer's discretion. For example "Merge and delete" or "Rename and merge". The closer should aim in any case, to decide based upon consensus, and policy and community norms.  It can sometimes be useful to provide a brief explanatory note, to make the rationale for the decision clear - this is especially true in heated and high public profile cases, or where many views will be given little weight (or a few views given substantial  weight), or where the basis of the close may be misunderstood or reviewed by others.  There is never an obligation to close - in some cases (see "concerns") it may be preferable to comment oneself, instead, even if the "due date" for closing has been reached, and leave the close to another user.  + Common outcomes Outcome  Commonly used for  Details Keep  All  A rough consensus to retain (i.e. not delete) a page, though not necessarily in its current form. To implement a 'keep' outcome: close the deletion discussion as 'keep'; edit the page to remove the deletion notice; and record the outcome on the page's talk page using one of several venue-specific templates (see 'Step-by-step instructions' for details). Delete  All  A rough consensus to remove (i.e. not retain) a page, including its entire revision history. To implement a 'delete' outcome: close the deletion discussion as 'delete'; delete the page, and link to the deletion discussion in the deletion summary; and, if the page should not be recreated, remove incoming links in other pages (except in discussions, archives and tracking pages). No consensus  All  A lack of a rough consensus for any one particular action. To implement a 'no consensus' outcome: close the deletion discussion as 'no consensus'; edit the page to remove the deletion notice; and record the outcome on the page's talk page using one of several venue-specific templates (see 'Step-by-step instructions' for details). Move (non-category pages), orRename (categories)  All  Issues to be addressed by changing the page title (and perhaps then expanding or improving its content). This can happen at AFD especially, if the article could be suitable for Wikipedia, but is created under an inappropriate title, and was nominated for deletion, but consensus agrees it is fixable if the title is changed. Categories require a different method than other pages:  Non-category pages - renaming is achieved using the page move function without deletion.  Categories - deletion is required to change the name. Merge   Articles, categories, templates  This combines two separate pages into a single page. Merge votes should be specific and clear. If you wish to merge templates or categories, use the deletion discussions. If you wish to merge articles, do not use a deletion discussion, but instead discuss it on the talk page. Disambiguate (or "Dabify")  Articles, redirects  If the discussion concludes that the title can refer to many topics, it can be changed to a disambiguation page to list all of them. Redirect   Articles, templates, miscellaneous pages  This would be used if the page has no unique and usable content, but information about the topic is found in another article. Userfy  Articles, templates, miscellaneous pages  This would move the page into the creator's userspace so that they may make improvements. If Wikipedia essays are nominated, they will sometimes be moved to userspace if they are found to violate policies or guidelines. Incubate  Articles  This changes the article into a draft to be improved so that it meets inclusion requirements. Delete but allow undeleting with an appropriate licence   Files  If a file is only deleted due to copyright issues, it could be re-uploaded if these issues are resolved Listify   Categories  This means to delete the category and create a list article instead. Retarget   Redirects  This means that the redirect should lead to a different page.  Deletion discussions needing action before their end date মনোনয়ন ত্রুটি ও সমস্যা  In certain situations, a deletion discussion may require correcting, moving elsewhere, or a null outcome ("procedural close"), due to issues with the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page itself:   No deletion notice on nominated page  The best course of action is to add the tag and note that you've done so. The time of tagging would then be treated as the nomination time. Currently linked from Main Page  If the nominated page is currently linked from the Main Page, remove any tag from the page itself. Then, if there are legitimate concerns, please use Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to have the link removed before nominating the article. If there are clearly none, or the nomination is disruptive, the nomination page should be closed early (see 'speedy close'). Nomination is an immediate objection to a prior deletion outcome, more appropriate for deletion review  List it at deletion review on the nominator's behalf, and link it appropriately (including linking it from the closed discussion), notify the nominator, and close the deletion discussion. Venue inappropriate (e.g., a file hosted on Commons, category or redirect at AFD, or discussions that the chosen venue is unable to address)  List the topic at the correct venue, notify the nominator, and close the discussion and provide a link to the new discussion. Never close a discussion as a wrong venue without opening a discussion at an appropriate one. Page does not exist or has already been deleted prior to the nomination  Close the discussion, and place a notice on the nominator's talk page. It is entirely possible that they may have mistyped the page name, or that the page was already deleted before they could start the deletion discussion. If the former was the case, politely tell the nominator to properly start a new discussion with the correct title, and the time they start the new discussion will be treated as the nomination time.  A deletion discussion that is poorly formatted should not be closed for this reason alone, in order to avoid biting new users. Instead, fix it.  প্রারম্ভিক অবসান In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days (168 hours) to allow interested editors adequate time to participate. However, under certain circumstances, discussions may be closed prior to the seven-day timeframe.  Closers should apply good judgment before speedily closing a discussion, since often it is best to allow the discussion to continue for the entirety of the seven-day period.  {| class=wikitable |- | Nomination Withdrawn ||  While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it.  Early closure is inappropriate where it appears that the withdrawal is simply an attempt to short-circuit an ongoing discussion.  If the nominator appears to have genuinely changed their mind due to other views expressed, the discussion should not be considered withdrawn. Instead, consider whether to use any of the early closures below. |- | Speedy keep || A "speedy keep" outcome is appropriate when the nomination unquestionably is an attempt to vandalize or to otherwise create disruption. For example:  Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion (possibly in an attempt to game the system), when dispute resolution would be a more appropriate course.  Nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (this includes editor harassment).  The nominated page is a policy or guideline. The deletion process is not a forum for policy concerns.  Frivolous or vexatious nominations (recently featured articles, for example). This includes re-nominating the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion.  Nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question.  The nominator is banned, so their edits are not to be retained. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be tagged with  and speedily deleted as a banned contribution.  However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the nomination should not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). |- | Speedy delete(see also #Speedy deletion) ||  When the nominated page unambiguously falls within any criteria for speedy deletion, particularly criterion G10 (attack page) or criterion G12 (copyright violation), it is not necessary to wait until the end of the discussion period. |- | Snowball clause || The "snowball clause" exists to avoid process for the sake of process, or when the outcome of the deletion discussion is, or has become, almost certain, such that there is not a "snowball's chance in hell" that the outcome will be anything other than what is expected, and there is clearly no need at all to prolong discussion further.  This clause should not be used to close a discussion when a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because deletion discussions are not a vote; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up.  This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon. |}  কোরাম নয়  If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:  relisting the discussion (see the section 'Relisting discussions');  closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR); and  closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal.  Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion sees very little discussion even after being relisted several times, the administrator can close the discussion as soft delete and delete the page. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion.  The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.  There is consensus among the community that problematic or likely-problematic articlesUsually articles unreferenced for years with an appropriate redirection target may be blanked and redirected by any editor if there are no objections. This similarly applies to deletion nominations as well; if no editor suggests that the corresponding article should be kept, then redirection is an option.   Closing discussions that run their full time  প্রক্রিয়া Discussions are usually closed after seven days (168 hours). If there is a lack of comments, or the action to take is unclear, the discussion may be relisted for an additional seven days. Usually, both closing and relisting are administrator actions.  পুনঃতালিকায়ন আলোচনা  The intent of the deletion process is to attempt to determine consensus on whether an article should be deleted.  However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus. A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.    That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.  Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the  template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient.  When relisting a discussion, it should be removed from the log for its original date (this does not apply at Categories for discussion) and moved to the current date's log where the discussion will continue. Scripts such as User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD automate the process.  The reasoning behind relisting may be indicated in the  template as well.  Non-administrators closing discussions  In general, administrators are responsible for closing deletion discussions, but non-administrators who are registered (i.e. not IPs) may close discussions, with the following provisions:  Like all discussions, deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not fairly experienced, or are unfamiliar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, do not close such discussions.  Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins.  Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages. Exception: a non-administrator may close a TfD as orphan. (See this July 2015 discussion.)  Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion, or for a page in which you have a vested interest (i.e. a page that you have edited heavily). Exception: closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep, when all other viewpoints were for keep as well.  Non-admins should indicate their non-admin status with the  ("non-admin close") template, which should always be substituted e.g.  '''Keep''' per [[WP:SNOW]]. {{subst:nac}} ~~~~ If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale.  This is unnecessary at WP:FFD, where a bot already performs closes of this sort.  Closes may only''' be reopened by an uninvolved administrator, giving their reasons in full, or by consensus at deletion review. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought. Editors reopening discussions are advised to notify the original closer and place a short note in the original discussion marking its reopening.  ধাপে ধাপে নির্দেশাবলী (সকল আলোচনার ধরণ)   আলোচনা ধরণ তথ্য পাতা আলোচনা বন্ধ করার নির্দেশাবলী নিবন্ধ অপসারণের প্রস্তাবনা (এএফডি) উইকিপিডিয়া:নিবন্ধ অপসারণের প্রস্তাবনা  উইকিপিডিয়া:নিবন্ধ অপসারণের প্রস্তাবনা/প্রশাসকের নির্দেশাবলী Categories for discussion (সিএএফডি) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion  Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions. Files for discussion (FfD) Wikipedia:Files for discussion  Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Administrator instructions. Possibly unfree files (PuF) উইকিপিডিয়া:সম্ভবত মুক্তনয় এমন ফাইল  Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Administrator instructions. Miscellany for deletion (এমএফডি) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion  Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions. Redirects for discussion (আরএফডি) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion  Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions. Templates for discussion (টিএফডি) Wikipedia:Templates for discussion  Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions. অপসারণ পর্যালোচনা (ডিআরভি) উইকিপিডিয়া:অপসারণ পর্যালোচনা  Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions.  বিশেষ পরিস্থিতি ট্রান্সউইকি If consensus indicates a transwiki should take place, but you do not want to complete the transwiki process immediately:  Add a new entry to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Transwiki.  নিবন্ধতে উপযুক্ত ট্যাগ যুক্ত করুন:  বহু পরিবর্তনসহ পাতা The deletion of pages with long histories may impact server performance. As a precaution, therefore, deletions of pages with more than 5,000 revisions require the special "bigdelete" user right, which administrators do not have. Such deletions can be requested of stewards at :meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous.  সমস্ত অপসারণ আলোচনা অনুসন্ধান  আরও দেখুন