Wikipedia:删除指导

维基百科，自由的百科全书

捷徑： WP:GVFD

刪除工具

條目（步驟|記錄）

{{subst:afd}} {{subst:cfd| 原因}}

模板（步驟|記錄）

{{ tfd| 模板名稱 }}

圖片（步驟|記錄）

{{subst:ifd}}

分類（步驟|記錄）

{{ cfd }}

小作品種類

{{ sfd-t }}   {{ sfd-c }}   {{ sfd-r }}

重定向（步驟|記錄） 侵犯版權 （步驟|記錄）

{{ rfd }}   {{ copyvio }}

合併

{{ merge }} {{ mergeto }}   {{ mergefrom }} {{ merging }}

頁面移動

{{ move }}   {{ moveoptions }} {{subst:Moved-n}} {{subst:Move2}}

快速刪除

{{ delete }} {{ db-author }} {{ db-reason|理由 }}

姊妹計畫

{{ 移动到维基词典 }} {{ 移动到维基语录 }} {{ 移动到维基文库 }} {{ 移动到维基教科书 }} {{ 移动到维基新闻 }} {{ NowCommons }}

刪除 恢復 - 守則 - 記錄

本条目是对删除条目程序的指导，解释如何运作删除条目程序和你可能遇到的一些问题。 如果你写的条目被注明要求删除，你可以阅读一下本条目，看看出现了什麽问题，你可以为这个程序作些什麽。“如果你是新加入到维基的编辑，不管是用笔名或真名，最好仔细阅读一下下列关于删除程序的章节和有关的讨论”。 必须弄清楚的问题 关于删除一个条目，尤其对于新加入的或尚不熟悉规则的人来说，必须要弄清楚这“只是针对条目，并不是针对人”，那怕是针对你写的自传或介绍本人的条目，也只是讨论“条目”本身是否适合放入维基百科中，有时新来的人可能认为删除条目不友好，不接受某些条目就是不接受写这些条目的作者，事实上并不是这麽一回事。 再有你要弄清楚删除条目请求栏目是非常繁忙的和经常需要大量重复的工作，经常请求删除条目的人可能看起来是简单粗暴和没礼貌的，但你要了解许多有经验的维基人要经历几百条删除条目的讨论，可能听过许多次同样的申诉理由，所以他们在讨论中经常用下列的缩略语，而避免一次又一次地用兀长的语句和打字重复同样的理由，他们只是想提高效率。有时他们会用一些简短的词汇来表达想法，只是想避免单调地重复“同意删除”或“保留”的投票。 当然，所有的维基人都应该在删除投票时尽量避免简单粗暴和没有礼貌。所有维基人都应该尽量有礼貌地和用良好的心态对待条目的作者。 继续编辑被请求删除的条目 你和其他人都会被欢迎继续编辑被请求删除的条目，被请求删除并不是就被冻结了，维基百科鼓励你根据讨论所提出的问题改善这个条目，（如果没有讨论，只是用下列的缩略语要求删除，你也可以作重大的修改）。 假如你请求删除一个条目，并且相信这个条目一定会被删除，也还可以继续编辑使其更符合维基的格式，读者不会不去阅读一个格式不正确的条目，虽然这个条目注定要被删除。 但是你不能在下列三种情况下编辑：

• 你决不能把一个条目清空，再对其重定向，或和其他条目合并；
• 你决不能去除一个请求删除模版或修改这个模版；
• 你决不能在没有将讨论页一起重命名的情况下将这个条目重命名。

上述这些要求“仅仅”是从技术角度出发。在一个条目被请求删除期间，模版一定要保留，这样读者和编辑看到这个条目时都能了解它被请求删除，因此可以到讨论页发表自己的意见。同时保持模版和删除请求页面之间的联系，GFDL许可协议也要求保留作者姓名。

要想改变条目的名称或重定向，必须等到决定该条目是否删除的讨论结束。你可以在讨论中使用下面的缩略语提出该条目是否应该改变名称或重定向。 同样在讨论过程中也不应该将条目和其他条目合并，因为合并后这个条目会成为一个重定向条目，因此丧失了编辑历史和作出贡献的作者的信息，违反了GFDL协议。所以合并也必须等到讨论结束。下面也有缩略语可以用来表示你希望这个条目应该和哪个条目合并。 删除过程 参见Wikipedia:删除守则 从维基百科中删除一个条目可以根据两个政策，一是快速删除，这项过程可能只有很少数人能阅读这个条目，因此要求非常严格。大部分条目基本应该遵照Wikipedia:删除守则，一个条目被请求删除，必须经过讨论，然后管理员根据讨论的结果来决定，尤其是对于要求删除图片、模版、重定向或分类，都要经过这种过程，因为这种删除会牵扯到许多维基人，希望能够得到绝大多数人的一致赞同，比起快速删除来，可以尽量少犯错误。 请求删除 请求删除要经过三道手续：请求者要

• 在条目中放上请求删除模版；
• 在请求删除页面中开辟讨论；
• 在主要作者用户页面上提出删除警告。

请求者必须完成全部三个程序，否则你的请求可能会被忽略。 在请求删除之前，请：

• 仔细阅读Wikipedia:删除守则，看清楚什麽“不是”请求删除的原因，考虑好你是否只是想将这个条目和其他合并？希望继续扩展？而不是简单地将其删除。
• 考虑一下你是否可以继续编写这个条目，是否可以只是加一个小条目 或 小小条目就可以了，而不必要求删除。
• 检查一下左面工具条中的“链入页面”，看有多少其他条目使用了和它的链接。
• 查看一下你要求删除的是否一个普通条目，如果是模版、分类、图片、重定向、用户页面、Wikipedia条目都各有其他的删除程序。
• 用户页面也可以被请求删除，但一般不会被删除，只是在非常特殊的情况下才这麽作。
• Wikipedia的条目也可被请求删除，但这种情况非常少见，“如果你想想改变政策，不要先提请删除”，一般都是先要求讨论，征求大部分人的一致意见。

请求删除要先列出条目名称，然后提出请求删除的理由。要记住签名，加上四个~~~~就可以签名。没有提请人签名的投票可能不会受到重视。

不管你是匿名的或使用假名的，任何用户都可以请求删除。如果你是这个条目的唯一作者，你的请求可以使用[[Wikipedia:可以快速删除的条目的标准 |快速删除]]。重要的不是谁请求的，而是请求的是否有道理，明显是故意破坏的请求则无效。 请求删除的人要表明自己的态度，投上“删除”的一票。除非提请人不同意删除，例如是有经验的维基人代替其他没有经验或不会使用请求删除的人来请求，或在其他条目讨论中要求删除这个条目，这时替代的提请人也应该明确表明自己的态度：是弃权还是认为应该保留。 讨论 在删除讨论页中被请求删除的条目名称下进行是否要删除这个条目的讨论。在讨论过程中要遵守讨论页面的格式，要依照维基政策：不要伤害新来者；不要攻击；维基礼节、维基文明等。

为了方便，你可以将发表的讨论贴在该请求删除下面，当然你可以发表几个贴子，应该将你是否同意用黑体明确标明，再加上理由的缩略语。是否评论由你自己决定，假如有人不参加投票，可以用"意见:"表达自己的建议，但要明确表示不代表你的投票。

发表意见后请用四个~~~~签名，没有签名的意见不会受到重视。 任何人都可以参与投票和讨论，不管是匿名的或使用假名的，该条目的作者也可以参与讨论和投票，和其他人同等对待。重要的不是谁，而是你表达的意见和投票是否真诚。要清楚管理员在讨论结束作决定时，会不理会那些明显地没有道理的投票和讨论。而相反，如果一个用户会根据Wikipedia:删除守则以正确的方式进行争辩，即使他是匿名的，也可能能够左右决定是否删除。 讨论的目的是达成共识，尽力弥补分歧，但维基不是民主，多数票不是决定因素。在投票时最好将你的理由详尽的表明，能说服不同意见的人让步；或提出一个变通办法。让管理员在讨论结束作出决定时，能明白你所提出的理由，或在条目修改时能采纳你提出的建议。下面有一些缩略语可以使用，以节省打字的时间。“不讲道理的投票会被视为无效”。 有经验的参与删除讨论的人会经常再次访问讨论页，看看其他人提出的理由或条目修改情况决定自己是否修改投票意见或提出新的意见坚持自己的投票。但请注意“只能投一次票”。如果你想改变想法，请不要删除你的原有投票，而是用<s>...</s&gt划掉。不要划掉、删除或更改其他人的投票意见，即使你相信他们是不怀好意的，除非是被禁封的人。明显的是由同一个人投的两次票会被视为一次，甚至会被认为无效。

“请不要在其他人投票中间插入你的评论”，虽然你可能认为这会帮助决定是否删除，但你仍然要明白投票并“不是决定因素”，维基并不是实验民主的地方，上下文之间的顺序在投票过程和结束时都是了解投票人意见的关键因素，中间插入评论并不能使确定投票结果更容易，反而更困难。 一个恶意参与者破坏的方法是注册多个用户页参与投票，以影响投票结果（就是使用马甲），这也是维基为什麽不主张民主的原因之一。另一种方法是劝导不是维基人的朋友来注册帮助投票，（例如在其他网站上发帖子，号召其他网站的朋友到这里来帮助投票。）在这种情况下这些参与者一般都是在讨论开始后才注册的，只是对讨论页和正在讨论的条目有贡献，甚至只是一个破坏者，其他维基人应该密切注意这种情况。当然，这种破坏者很难和普通新来的人区分开。“如果你是一位新来的匿名创作者，或你刚写第一个条目，请在你的用户页说明”。当其他人指出你的编辑历史很少时也不要生气。另一方面，如果你发现一个新来的人参与讨论，也不要武断地指称他为马甲，只要指出他是新来的就可以了。 结束讨论 在请求删除的讨论经过一段时间后，一位管理员可以根据讨论结果决定是否删除以结束讨论，这种过程并不是民主，投票对于管理员只是一个参考，是否删除取决于管理员的判断，一个好的管理员如同一个好的投票者一样，应该明确说明自己为什麽采取这种决定。 结束投票后还要封存投票结果，以便将来重写这个条目时参考，或重定向、重命名以及和其他条目合并时参考，如果最后决定是和其他条目合并，可能工作量很大，时间紧张的管理员也许只是在条目上加一个需要合并的模版，大家都可以做这个工作。

投票 投票的结果只能有两种，一是保留；一是删除，因此你如果投保留，就会连同编辑历史一起保留，如果投删除，就会连同编辑历史一起删除。如果有其他的意见，也会联系到这两种基本意见之一（通常复杂的意见会因为技术原因被推迟）。 只要有理由，需要进一步完善或设定某些条件的意见也是可以接受的，（但是太复杂的数学公式形式的意见是无法解读的，会被管理员忽略）下面是一些复合的建议实例：

• “删除”然后建立一个“重定向”到……。投这种票的人认为目前这个条目和其编辑历史因为某种原因不应该保留，（例如具有诽谤性），但这种条目应该有，希望重定向到已经存在的或再重新写的条目中。
• 如果某个问题可以解决，应该“合并”，否则“删除”。投这种票的人认为管理员应该考虑给予一定的时间进行修改。
• “删除”但保留红字链接。投这种票的人认为目前这个条目和其编辑历史因为某种原因不应该保留，但应该保留条目名称，以便其他人再写，同时保留链接。

投票缩略语 下列是一些通常用于投票过程中的缩略语：

• "Speedy delete" or "Speedy" or "CSD" are shorthands for "Delete this article under the speedy deletion criteria". A voter who votes "Speedy Delete" thinks that the article qualifies under the speedy deletion criteria, and need not proceed further through the AFD process.
• "Copyvio" is a shorthand for "Delete this article through the copyright violation deletion process rather than through AFD". A voter who votes "Copyvio" should list the article at en:Wikipedia:Copyright problems and apply the copyright violation notice to the article. Copyright violation supercedes AFD for article content, and usually AFD discussion ceases at this point. However, in rare cases the discussion may continue as to whether an article by this title is merited, which will affect the status of any rewrite article resulting from the copyright problems process.
• "BJAODN" is a shorthand for "Delete and submit to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, deleting the resultant redirect". BJAODN is a page where Wikipedians archive pages that they deem to be worthy of saving for humour value. People do not necessarily consider the article a bad joke or nonsensical; indeed, a number of amusing and coherent articles that simply do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion have been partially preserved in this form.
• "Userfy" is a shorthand for "Rename to the author's userspace and Delete the resultant redirect left behind in the main namespace". A voter who votes "Userfy" thinks that the article's content is appropriate for a user page, and should be moved there. This can also apply to vanity articles created by anonymous authors, the implication being that the anonymous author should create a user account to hold the user page.
• "Transwiki to sibling project" is a shorthand for "Submit to the transwiki scheme for moving to sibling project and delete afterwards". A voter who votes "Transwiki" usually does so in the belief that whilst the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia it is appropriate for one of its sibling projects. Note that articles that are copies of articles from other language Wikipedia projects meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Of course, an article to transwiki should not be deleted until transwikiing is complete.
• "Wiktionary" is a shorthand for "Submit to the transwiki scheme for moving to Wiktionary and delete afterwards". A voter who votes "Wiktionary" usually does so in the belief that whilst the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia it is appropriate for en:Wiktionary. This is used for articles that are nothing more than a dictionary definition, and are unlikely to develop further. This is by far the most common Transwiki candidate.
• "Wikisource" is a shorthand for "Submit to the transwiki scheme for en:Wikisource and delete afterwards". A voter who votes "Wikisource" usually does so in the belief that whilst the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia it is appropriate for Wikisource. This is used for articles that constitute a "text dump" of source materials (essays, papers, books) that are in the en:public domain.
• "Merge to Example" is a shorthand for "Keep and merge the content into Example, leaving a redirect afterwards". A voter who votes "Merge" usually does so in the belief that the article content is valuable, and that the article should be merged into a more complete, more general, or simply pre-existing article. This is a common solution to things which are non-notable on their own or are otherwise redundant with an existing article.
• "Merge to Example and disambig" is a shorthand for "Keep and merge the content into Example, then turn the article into a disambiguation page". A voter who votes "Merge and disambig" usually does so in the belief that the article content is valuable and should be merged into a more complete or general article, but that the title may refer to several different topics, and therefore a disambiguation page is preferred over a simple redirect.
• "Redirect to Example" is usually a shorthand for "Keep and change into a redirect article pointing to Example". A voter who votes "Redirect" usually does so in the belief that whilst the article's content is discardable, a redirect should exist to redirect readers who use that article title to a more complete, more general, or simply pre-existing article. Usually, a pure "redirect" means the voter wants the article's history kept. If the voter wants the history deleted before the redirect is made to replace it, s/he may instead write "Delete and redirect".
• "Dab" is sometimes used as shorthand for 'disambig', as above.
• "Rename to Example" is a shorthand for "Keep and rename the page to Example". A voter who votes "Rename" usually does so in the belief that the article content is valuable, but that the article is mis-named, for whatever reason. (The name may be misleading, or may not conform to a neutral point of view, for examples.)
• "Cleanup" is a shorthand for "Keep and send to cleanup". A voter who votes "Cleanup" usually does so in the belief that whilst the article is appropriate for Wikipedia as it stands it is in need of cleaning up. Note that it is perfectly permissible for an article to be listed for cleanup (by applying one or more of the appropriate cleanup tags) whilst it is still being discussed. It is not necessary to wait until the end of the discussion.
• "Speedy keep" is a (rarely used) shorthand for "Keep this article and close the discussion now". A voter who votes "Speedy Keep" thinks that the nomination was an improper one that was made in error or as vandalism. (Please bear in mind the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith before making this vote.) Articles are generally not unlisted unless the nominator withdraws and there have not been any "delete" votes yet.

加强语气 可以用下面一些缩略语加强语气：

• "Strong" implies a firm conviction in an opinion, and that the editor will be unlikely to change it in the face of future developments. Usually this is because the editor is convinced that fundamental Wikipedia policy is clear on whether the article should be kept or deleted. However, sometimes it reflects a editors's own strong personal conviction, irrespective of policy.
• "Weak" implies a lack of conviction in an opinion, and that the editor might change it in the face of future developments. Usually this is because the editor is unsure, without further information or discussion, of the correct action.
• "Speedy" always implies that some part of votes for deletion policy has been misunderstood by the nominator. (see above for examples)

不正确的投票 有一些新来的人不太熟悉请求删除的规则，可能会表达一些互相矛盾或违反维基删除守则的意见，应该避免使用下列不正确的表达意见的缩略语：

• "Merge to Example and Delete". Article merger requires that editing history of the source article be kept, for attribution purposes as required by the GFDL. It is not allowed to delete the editing history whilst retaining this content. The reason why this should be avoided is that if the article has a nontrivial editing history, "merging the history" is a very laborious operation for the acting sysop. When closing discussion, administrators will usually consider this to be one of the following instead:
  • "merge to Example"
  • "Delete all article content and edit history and then re-create as a redirect to Example"

An exception to this is the case of an article where, apart from the AFD nomination, the entire article history consists of a single edit by a single user. In this case, the GFDL requirements are easily satisfied by a simple attribution on the target article's Talk page and "merge and delete" is a reasonable disposition.

It has been suggested that merge and delete is possible with proper attribution by moving the AFDed page to a subpage of the talk page of the article it's merged with and linking it from the talk page. This would preserve history and not leave behind a possibly meaningless (or worse) redirect.

• "Merge to Example without redirect". An article merger without the final step of creating a redirect is not actually a merger at all. In fact, it actually exacerbates the duplication. Whilst the voter's intent may well be to vote for deletion, when closing discussion administrators will usually err on the side of caution (as per deletion policy) and consider this vote to be "Merge to Example", which might not be what the voter wanted at all.

表达理由 在删除投票过程中提出理由比单纯投票“更”重要，下面列出一些表达理由所使用的缩略语，主要是想提高以下效率和速度。但并不是所有的维基人都同意这些缩略语能表示出详细的理由，或对是否删除能起作用。这些缩略语并不正式规定代表投票，只是表示“投票者的想法”。 同时参见：

• en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines
• en:Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies
• en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines
• en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#How_Far_To_Go.3F — notability and inclusion guidelines for number articles

• "(as) per en:User:Example" is a shorthand for "The same reasoning as given by en:User:Example".
• "(as) per en:Page" is a shorthand for "The reasoning explained on en:Page"; whether en:Page is policy or not is not at issue.
• "-cruft" (for example, "gamecruft", "fancruft", or "forumcruft") is a shorthand for "This article is fancruft, trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, pop singer, web forum, &c". Where the line is drawn is highly subjective and can be controversial. Many Wikipedians are more tolerant of trivia when it relates to factual content, rather than to popular culture, however.
• "dicdef"/"dictdef" are shorthands for "This is a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Usually this accompanies a Wiktionary or a Delete (because Wiktionary already has an article) vote.
• "essay" is a shorthand for "This article is original research that contravenes the no original research policy, or a long essay that promotes a particular point of view, contravening the neutral point of view policy". Both policies are fundamental Wikipedia policies. Such articles should be published via other outlets, instead of in Wikipedia.
• "how-to" is a shorthand for "The article is a set of instructions on doing something rather an article than on the thing itself". Although articles should discuss how a particular activity is accomplished, they should generally not provide step-by-step guides directing the reader on how to do so; that is the province of Wikipedia's sibling project en:Wikibooks.
• "neologism" is a shorthand for "The word or phrase used is not well-established enough to merit a Wikipedia article." This may be either a literal en:neologism (a new word which is simply not well-established) or a vanity neologism (a word coined in a small community but not used outside it). The article may need to be renamed or simply deleted. Note that in some cases a neologism can mean a word or phrase that is of recent origin, even if widely used and therefore having encyclopedic relevance (e.g., en:e-democracy).
• "original research" is a shorthand for "The article is someone's private theory, critique, rant, or essay".
• "patent nonsense" is shorthand for "A nonsensical article". Nonsensical articles are usually either labelled such for their writing style or for containing fabricated, nonsensical material; in the case of the former, rewriting is a possibility.
• "non-encyclopaedic" is shorthand for "Something that traditionally does not belong in an encyclopaedia, and doesn't fit the traditional definition of things that do". This in itself may not be enough to justify a reason for deletion, unless the article is clearly a case of what Wikipedia is not. Note that some users use this term and "non-notable" interchangeably.
• "non-notable" or "nn" are shorthands for "Something that (the voter thinks) is unimportant due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type". See above for several guidelines to notability that some Wikipedians agree upon and apply. If the article is related to something more common or well-known, consider merging it with that.
• "personal attack" is shorthand for "The article specifically attacks some person, group, idea or thing, which is a violation of both Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and basic manners, and may well be libellous to boot". Criticism, however, is welcome on Wikipedia, provided that it is factual, non-biased, and civil.
• "POV" is shorthand for "The article's title, or its mere existence, make it inherently biased, thus violating Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy, and that it should therefore be deleted". People using this shorthand don't mean you are not entitled to a point of view, simply that the article must not support one point of view exclusively or over contrary points of view.
• "POV fork" is a shorthand for "This article was created primarily to present the subject of an existing article from a different point of view". Note however that creating a temporary "sandbox" version of an article where parties in a POV dispute can propose changes is allowed.
• "promotional", "advertisement", "'ad", "advertorial", "spam", and "Wikispam" are shorthands for "The article's central intent is to promote a website, product, or business". See what Wikipedia is not.
• "recipe" is a shorthand for "The article is a recipe, giving preparation instructions rather than discussing the foodstuff in question". Although articles on foods should discuss how the food is made and what is used to make it, they should not provide step-by-step guides directing the reader on how to do so; that is the province of our sister project en:Wikibooks.
• "too secret" is a shorthand for "Secret societies are unverifiable and often non-notable". Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. Almost by definition, the world cannot verify things about secret societies.
• "vanity" is a shorthand for "This page is about a person, institution, or organization who Wikipedia's guidelines suggest does not merit an article". Many Wikipedians will willingly admit that they themselves do not merit articles. Use of this term as reasoning is supposed to suggest that the voter believes that the article was created or edited by the subject of the article or by a close associate, but sometimes the term is used simply to express the opinion that the article lacks usefulness.
• "en:WP:POINT" refers to the rule that one should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Occasionally, nominations or votes are made in reaction to something not relevant. For instance, if an article on one's favorite band is on AFD, one should not AFD the en:Rolling Stones in response. Nor should one oppose someone's votes simply on grounds of not liking that person.
• "wrong namespace" is a shorthand for "The article is an article about Wikipedia, its workings, and/or its participants". Such articles should be moved into either the "Wikipedia:" namespace (in other words, en:ArticleAboutWikipedia becomes en:Wikipedia:ArticleAboutWikipedia) or into a user subpage (in which case the article would become en:User:Article'sCreator/ArticleAboutWikipedia). Some articles may instead be moved to the en:Wikimedia meta pages. Note that articles may be moved by any logged-in user, so these typically should not be listed for this reason.

其他缩略语 下列这些缩略语既不代表投票也不代表陈述理由，只是一些参与讨论的其他意见：

• "Rewritten article" and "Modified article" is a shorthand for "I have rewritten the article, or modified it to such a significant extent, that the preceding voters may wish to re-read the article as it now stands and consider changing their votes". Some editors opine that part of the fun of AFD is rewriting an article and then seeing all of the prior "Delete" votes struck through and replaced by "Keep after rewrite by X".
• "Comment" is a shorthand for "This is not to be taken as a vote". It is not necessary to mark comments as comments, as the highlighting of votes makes them stand out, and in many ways the comments are just as informative to the administrator trying to determine consensus as the votes are. However, some contributors explicitly mark comments as comments if they are at the outermost level of indentation.
• "Abstain" and "No vote" are also shorthands for "This is not to be taken as a vote". They are often seen on nominations made on behalf of other users.

请求删除的条件 从技术上来讲，所有的条目，包括主页、Wikipedia条目、用户页面和talk页面都可以被提请删除。但实际上如果提请删除主页或其他重要的指导条目等于是打投票仗，或让大家引用en:WP:POINT，一般不会获得一致意见。大家一般会对Wikipedia条目和用户页面比较宽容，甚至允许Wikipedia条目中包括象棋比赛，允许用户页面的描述非常偏激。除非你有非常重大的理由，一般不要提请删除用户页面。 再次提请删除 如果删除请求的投票没有能达成一致，应该先保留这个条目。要注意的是这并不妨碍继续编辑、重命名这个条目或与其他条目合并，因为这些活动并不包括在投票删除范围内。同时也没有任何规则不允许再次将这个条目提出请求删除，也没有规定再次请求删除需要的时间间隔。然而再次提请删除时你应该考虑到大家的感受，在两个星期内最好不要提请删除同一个已经保留的条目，除非你有更充实的理由可以说服大家改变主意，最好经过一段足够长的时间以后再提。 上述情况不包括那些没有引起人们注意的删除投票，例如只有2-3个人投票，这时可以立即再次提请删除，以便引起人们的注意。当然，这也不是说所有的投票人数少的请求都要再次提出，尤其是虽然票数少但意见相当一致的更没有必要再次请求。维基不那麽官僚，对于请求删除也没有规定法定人数。

参见

• Alternative outlets for deleted articles
• Undeletion policy for when the deletion process goes wrong
• en:Wikipedia:Centralized discussion for a number of discussions on groups of articles
• Archived delete debates
• Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Candidates for speedy deletion
• Articles for Deletion Precedents
• en:Wikipedia:Importance
• en::Category:Pages on votes for deletion

en:Category:Wikipedia deletion