사용자:ChongDae/삭제 절차
 | 이 문서는 다른 언어판 위키백과의 문서(en:Wikipedia:Deletion process)를 번역 중이며, 한국어로 좀 더 다듬어져야 합니다. |
삭제 절차는 문서와 미디어 파일을 삭제 정책할지, 유지할지에 대한 공동체의 결정 과정과 그 기록을 포함합니다.
일반적으로 문서의 삭제는 삭제 토론을 거쳐 공동체의 총의를 모아 결정됩니다. 일반적으로 토론의 최종 결정은 관리자가 내리나, 특정 조건에서는 관리자가 아닌 평판이 좋은 일반 사용자도 토론을 종결할 수 있습니다. 하지만 편집자가 생각하기에 문서의 삭제에 대해 논란의 여지가 없다고 판단된다면, 바로 삭제 제안을 할 수 있습니다. 만약 총의에 따라 정해진 엄격한 기준을 만족하는 경우, 빠른 삭제 결정이 내려질 수 있습니다.
참고: 공동체의 총의에 우선해, 위키미디어 재단 이사회나 시스템 관리자는 저작권이나 법적 문제, 서버 부하 문제를 해결하기 문서를 삭제할 수 있습니다.
빠른 삭제
편집빠른 삭제 절차는 관리자의 재량에 따라 삭제를 해도 된다고 폭넓게 합의된 빠른 삭제 정책의 조건을 만족하는 경우, 삭제 토론을 건너뛰고 바로 삭제하는 절차입니다.
빠른 삭제 절차에 따라 문서를 삭제하기 전에, 빠른 삭제 정책의 기준을 하나 이상 충족하는지 검토하고, 문서 역사를 확인해서 이전 판으로 문서 되돌리기로 대신할 수 있는지 평가하고, 삭제의 필요성이나 이유에 영향을 미칠 수있는 다른 정보를 찾아봐야 합니다:
- 첫 편집 요약은 문서의 출처와 이유에 대한 정보를 줄 수 있습니다.
- 토론 문서에는 예전의 삭제 토론이나 문서 내용에 관한 토론이 남아있을 수 있습니다.
- 문서 기록에는 예전의 삭제 기록이 남아있을 수 있습니다.
- 여기를 가리키는 문서를 이용, 위키백과에서 언급되는 부분이나, 삭제를 정당화할 관련 문서를 찾아볼 수 있습니다. 다시 만들지 말아야 할 문서라면, 여기를 가리키는 (토론 문서나 보존 문서, 추적 문서를 제와한) 다른 문서의 링크도 제거해야 합니다.
만약 빠른 삭제에 적합하지 않은 경우, 빠른 삭제 틀을 제거해 주세요. 필요하다면 삭제를 제안한 편집자에게도 알려주세요.
빠른 삭제 절차에 따라 문서를 삭제하는 경우, 삭제 기록.에 남아있을 수 있도록, 삭제 요약에 삭제 사유를 남겨주세요. 삭제 요약에 원 문서의 내용 일부를 남기면 도움이 되겠지만, 공격적인 내용이나 저작권 침해 내용은 남기지 않도록 주의해야 합니다. 필요하다면 문서를 만든 사용자에게 문서 삭제 사실을 알려주는 것이 좋을 수 있습니다.
삭제 제안
편집위키백과:삭제 제안 절차는 빠른 삭제의 엄격한 기준을 만족하지는 않지만, 삭제에 대한 논쟁의 여지가 없다고 여겨질 경우에 진행됩니다. 이 절차에 따라 편집자는 문서에 삭제 제안 틀을 추가할 수 있고, 다른 편집자는 삭제 제안 틀을 제거해서 문서의 삭제를 막을 수 있습니다. 만약 7일 후에도 삭제 제안 틀이 남아 있다면, 문서는 삭제될 수 있습니다. 삭제 제안된 문서의 삭제 처리에 대해서는 위키백과:삭제 제안#삭제를 참고하세요.
삭제 토론
편집삭제 토론 절차는 공식적으로 삭제 토론을 토론장에 올려 삭제를 진행하는 절차입니다. 삭제 토론을 닫기 위한 절차는 토론 유형마다 다르지만, 몇가지 일반적 원칙이 적용됩니다.
Deletion venues
편집Deletion venues (or deletion forums) are the six places to propose a page not eligible for speedy deletion be deleted:
- ↑ The process of starting a discussion is greatly aided by the use of Twinkle, a software package available to any autoconfirmed user.
- ↑ There is also proposed deletion, an alternative system to suggest uncontroversial delayed speedy deletion of pages in the article namespace after a notice has been present for seven days.
- ↑ 가 나 Established policies, guidelines, and process pages, along with templates related to them, should not be nominated at deletion venues, because it is outside of their prerogative to modify or revoke policy. Instead, start a discussion on the talk page of the concerned page or at the village pump.
| Deletion challenges | Scope | Closing instructions |
|---|---|---|
| Deletion review (DRV) | For appealing the deletion of a page or outcome of a deletion discussion if it appears to be against community consensus that are outside of the scope of requests for undeletion, after discussing with the deleting administrator or closer respectively, if desired. | Purpose Starting a discussion Closing instructions |
총의
편집Consensus 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.)
Concerns about conduct or views
편집- Inappropriate canvassing and suspected meatpuppetry: Evaluate whether it has influenced the outcome of the discussion in a way that compromised the standard consensus-building process. If appropriate, remind participants that deletion discussions are not a vote, and link to a suitable information page. Remember to assume good faith in your tone - the participants may well intend to help by doing what they think is right.
- Sock-puppetry: If blatant, individual comments may be tagged (this is likely to be seen as lacking good faith or offensive if the case is not clear). If unsure, report as usual for suspected sock-puppetry, and indicate your concern and reason in the debate for the closer and future participants, but in a way that addresses the debate rather than attacking the user.
- Conflict between the views expressed and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (e.g., an inappropriate supermajority view without an appropriate basis): Remember that you have quite a few options. These include commenting yourself, rather than closing, or extending the period of discussion, noting this is done due to concerns and to allow other editors to comment. Also remember that nobody is obligated to close a discussion, nor is it crucial that a discussion be closed immediately once its week-long run has ended.
Deletion requested by subject
편집Deletion discussions concerning biographies of living persons who are relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus to keep, may be closed as 'delete' per the deletion policy and BLP policy (request for deletion). Closers should review these policies to confirm the criteria are met, and then use their discretion.
Common outcomes
편집
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion § Recommendations and outcomes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes 및 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes 문서를 참고하십시오.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.
| 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), or Rename (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:
|
| 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
편집Nomination errors and issues
편집In 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 위키백과:대문 | 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 위키백과: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.
Early closure
편집In 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.
| Withdrawn nomination | 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.
|
| Speedy keep | A "speedy keep" close is warranted when the nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. A "speedy keep" outcome is also appropriate when the nomination unquestionably is an attempt to vandalize or to otherwise create disruption. For example:
|
| 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. |
No quorum
편집
WP:Soft Deletion은(는) 여기로 연결됩니다. the failed proposal에 대해서는 WP:Soft deletion (failed proposal) 문서를 참고하십시오.
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. While related to PRODs, soft deletions are a function of XfD, and are not inhibited by previous PRODs.
- There is consensus among the community that problematic or likely-problematic articles[1] 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
편집Procedure
편집Discussions 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.
Relisting discussions
편집 Wikipedia:Relisting은(는) 여기로 연결됩니다. relisting requested moves에 대해서는 Wikipedia:Requested moves#Relisting 문서를 참고하십시오.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 {{relist}} 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 {{relist}} template as well.
Non-administrators closing discussions
편집
Wikipedia:Non-admin closure 문서에 이 부분의 추가 정보가 있습니다.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 {{nac}} ("non-admin close") template, which should always be
substituted e.g.틀:Tlxs '''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.
Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving at least one good reason, 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. If a participant reopens a non-admin closure, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure. Editors restoring a closure are advised to place a short note in the original discussion marking the restoration of the closure.
Step-by-step instructions (all discussion types)
편집| Discussion type | Information page | Instructions for closing |
|---|---|---|
| Articles for deletion (AfD) | 위키백과:삭제 토론 | |
| Categories for discussion (CfD) | 위키백과:Categories for discussion | |
| Files for discussion (FfD) | 위키백과:Files for discussion | |
| Miscellany for deletion (MfD) | 위키백과:Miscellany for deletion | |
| Redirects for discussion (RfD) | 위키백과:Redirects for discussion | |
| Templates for discussion (TfD) | 위키백과:Templates for discussion | |
| Deletion review (DRV) | 위키백과:복구 토론 |
Special situations
편집Transwiki
편집If consensus indicates a transwiki should take place, but you do not want to complete the transwiki process immediately:
- Add a new entry to 위키백과:Articles for deletion/Old/Transwiki.
- Add the appropriate tag to the article:
Pages with many revisions
편집The 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.
Search all deletion discussions
편집To search for any mention of an existing fullpagename of interest in "all discussion types" listed above, go to the page of interest, and preview this line in any of its wikitext:
{{ #lst: WP: Deletion process | search links }}
These three search links will then appear in this box (but in warning coloration):
From that preview, activate a search. From search results, modify the query, return to the preview, or not. Preview is safe. Return and search all three.
Notes
편집- ↑ Usually articles unreferenced for years.