විකිපීඩියා:මකාදැමීමේ ක්‍රියාවලිය

මෙම පිටුව ඉංග්‍රීසි ව්‍යාපෘතියෙන් මෙහි ගෙනවිත් ඇත. අන්තර්ගතය අපගේ ව්‍යාපෘතිය සමඟ 100% නොගැලපෙනමුත් අපගේ අවශ්‍යතාවයන් වලට අනුකූලව ගොඩනගා ගැනීම සඳහා මූලික පියවර ලෙස භාවිතා කළ හැකිය.

මෙම පිටුව සිංහල විකිපීඩියාවෙහි මකාදැමීමේ මාර්ගෝපදේශන ලේඛනගත කරයි.
සාමාන්‍ය දැනීම අනුව ක්‍රියාකිරීම නිවැරැදි ක්‍රමවේදය විය හැකි වුවද, සහ විටින් විට ව්‍යතිරේකයන් අදාළ වූවද සංස්කාරකවරුන් විසින් මෙය පිළිපැදීමට වෙර දැරීම සාමාන්‍යයෙන් පිළිගන්නාවූ සම්මතය වෙයි. මෙම පිටුවට ඇතිකරන්නාවූ කිසියම් සත්තාවී සංස්කරණයන් සම්මුතිය ප්‍රදක්ෂිණා කරන අයුරින් විය යුතුයි. ඔබ කිසියම් දෙගිඩියාවකින් සිටියි නම්, පළමුව සාකච්ඡා පිටුවෙහි සාකච්ඡා කරන්න.

කෙටි මං

ඔබ නවකයෙක් ද? සාදරයෙන් පිළිගනිමු! මෙම පිටුවේ සරල කළ අනුවාදයක් Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process හි ඇත.

මකාදැමීමේ ක්‍රියාවලිය යනු පිටුවක් මකා දැමීමට හෝ එය තබා ගැනීමට හෝ ප්‍රජාවේ තීරණයන් ක්‍රියත්මක කිරීමේ සහ සටහන් කර ගැනීමේ විකිපීඩියා ක්‍රියාවලියයි. පිටු හා මාධ්‍ය මකාදැමීමේ ක්‍රම කිහිපයක් විකිපීඩියා සතුව ඇත. සමහරක් අන්තර්ගතයන් ඉක්මන් මකාදැමීම සඳහා පාත්‍රවීමට සුදුසු කම් ලබති. අනෙකුත් ක්‍රමය වන්නේ, කිසිවෙකු විසින් දින හතක් තුල විරුද්ධත්වය පල නොකරන්නේ නම් පරිපාලකයෙකු විසින් යෝජනා ක්‍රියාවලිය ඔස්සේ අන්තර්ගතය මකාදැමිමයි.

The deletion process is the Wikipedia process involved in implementing and recording the community's decisions to delete or keep a page.

In general, administrators are responsible for closing these discussions; however, non-administrators in good standing may close them under specific conditions described under non-administrators closing discussions.

Important note: Office actions and declarations from the Wikimedia Foundation Board or the Developers, particularly concerning copyright, legal issues, or server load, may take priority over community consensus.

ඉක්මන් මකාදැමීම

The ඉක්මන් මකාදැමීමේ උපමානය process applies to pages which meet at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion, which specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media.

Before deleting a page through the speedy deletion process, verify that it meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version, and search for other information which may impact the need or reason for deletion.

The initial edit summary may have information about the source of or reason for the page.
The talk page may refer to previous deletion discussions or have ongoing discussion relevant to including the page.
The page log may have information about previous deletions that could warrant SALTing the page or keeping it.
What links here may show that the page is an oft-referred part of the encyclopedia, or may show other similar pages that warrant deletion. For pages that should not be recreated, incoming links in other pages (except in discussions, archives and tracking pages) should be removed.

If a page is not appropriate for speedy deletion, the page must be edited to remove the speedy deletion tag—this will, in turn, remove the page from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Consider notifying the editor who suggested deletion using {{Speedy-decline}}.

When deleting a page through the speedy deletion process, specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary so that it will be recorded into the deletion log. Quoting page content in the deletion summary may be helpful, but must not be done for attack content or copyrighted text. In some cases, it would be appropriate to notify the page's creator of the deletion.

Proposed deletion

The proposed deletion process applies to articles which do not meet the stringent criteria for speedy deletion, but for which it is believed that deletion would be uncontroversial. For instructions on handling articles which have been proposed for deletion, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Deleting.

Deletion discussions

The deletion discussions processes apply to pages which are formally nominated for deletion through an appropriate deletion discussion venue.

General principles

Although the steps for closing deletion discussions vary from one deletion discussion venue to another, a few general principles apply at all venues.

Consensus

මූලික පිටුව: Wikipedia:Consensus

Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance 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.)

If inappropriate canvassing has taken place, evaluate whether it influenced the outcome of the discussion in a way that compromised the standard consensus-building process.

Common outcomes

A deletion discussion may end with one of a number of distinct outcomes, with certain outcomes being more common at certain deletion discussion venues. However, three outcomes are common to all venues: keep, delete and no consensus.

A keep outcome reflects 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).

A delete outcome reflects 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).

A no consensus outcome reflects the 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).

Note: Deletion 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.

Other outcomes by discussion venue

Other possible outcomes include, but are not limited to:

WP:AFD: "soft delete" (treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion), "merge", "redirect", and "split".
WP:CFD: "speedy rename", "rename", "merge" (including "upmerge"), "split", and "convert to list"
WP:FFD: "delete without prejudice to undeleting/re-uploading with an appropriate licence"
WP:MFD: "userfy"
WP:RFD: "disambiguate" and "retarget"

Procedural closure

In certain situations, a deletion discussion may require a "procedural closure"—a null outcome based on the circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed. Situations where a procedural closure may be appropriate include:

The nominated page was not tagged with a corresponding deletion notice. Closers may, at their discretion, tag the nominated page(s) and relist the discussion instead of closing it.
The nominated page is currently linked from the Main Page. (If there are legitimate concerns, please use Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to have the link removed before nominating the article.)
A subsequent deletion discussion which immediately challenges the outcome of the prior deletion discussion, where a deletion review clearly would be more appropriate.
The deletion discussion is listed at the incorrect venue, e.g., a discussion for a category listed at Redirects for discussion. This includes discussions which contain no substantive arguments for any course of action which would be covered by the venue in question.

A deletion discussion that is poorly formatted should not be closed for this reason alone, in order to to avoid biting new users.

Early closure

In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days to allow interested editors ample 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 full seven days.

Withdrawn nomination

The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time. However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed. A nomination should not be withdrawn in order to try to short-circuit an ongoing discussion.

Speedy keep

මූලික පිටුව: Wikipedia: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 harrassment).
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.
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 {{db-ban}} 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

When the nominated page unambiguously falls under at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion, particularly criterion G10 (attack page) or criterion G12 (copyright violation).

Snowball clause

මූලික පිටුව: Wikipedia:Snowball clause

When the outcome of the deletion discussion is almost certain, such that there is not a "snowball's chance in hell" that the outcome will be anything other than what is expected.

Note: The "snowball clause" exists to avoid process for the sake of process, and should not be invoked in situations where a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely", or where there is genuine and reasoned disagreement.

No quorum

කෙටි මග

WP:NOQUORUM

If a nomination has no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Common options include, but are not limited to:

relisting the discussion (see the section 'Relisting discussions');
closing as "no consensus" without prejudice against immediate renomination; and
closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal.

Relisting discussions

කෙටි මං

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.

Note that relisting is rare at the stub types for deletion page; there are not many discussions, so they are usually simply left open at the bottom of the page for further comment.

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.

Non-administrators closing discussions

කෙටි මං

In general, administrators are responsible for closing deletion discussions. However, at times the many discussion venues become backlogged. Editors in good standing who are not administrators may close deletion discussions, with the following provisions:

Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, please, avoid closing discussions.
- Non-administrators should not close "delete" decisions at all, as they lack the technical ability to actually delete pages.
- Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator.
- In cases where an administrator has deleted a page but forgotten to close the discussion, his or her name and deletion summary should be included in the closing rationale.
Closing 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) should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well.

Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought.