Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples

Principles

• RevisionDelete is a balancing act between different priorities.
• RevisionDelete does not exist for routine unhelpful comments or unwise posts by users, or to cover up for those at fault.
• In many cases revert, block (if applicable), ignore may be preferable to deletion.
• Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is also open, it is best to have a clear public history of all edits and activities. However if that open history becomes a source of harm -- (perhaps because it effectively acts as a shrine to vandalism, or contains material that few if any users would say has any project value and is likely to be at best harmful/disruptive) then redaction may be a valid approach. Deletion from the public record is not to be done lightly though.
• Because potential privacy breaches and defamation are taken very seriously, if these may be involved then any admin has a green light to redact the text provided they quickly submit it to oversight to make a final decision on handling. Admins should read the section on oversightable material and consider whether it is better in some cases to request oversight and not redact first, to prevent attention being drawn.

Examples of RevDelete usage

Criterion	Description	Revdelete usually valid	RevDelete NOT usually valid	Notes / comments
1	Violation of copyright policy	It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,	The statement It was the best of times, it was the worst of times has taken on a new meaning in modern society.	Even though the second example is not properly sourced, it would not be enough of a copyright violation to justify revision deletion.
2	Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material	"I'm going to kill you tonight. I figured out where you live and I'm going to kill you." X committed a grossly insulting or morally depraved crime, where this accusation is not sourced to WP:BLP standards, and where X is a specifically identifiable individual	"According to ABC News, many people have told George Zimmerman's parents that they are going to kill them." "You are a liar and I'm going to see to it that you get blocked from Wikipedia" Common profanity or insults (WP:NPA), e.g. fuck you / User:Example is gay / User:Example is retarded / User:Example is an asshole	In addition to requesting revision deletion, the first example should be reported to emergencywikimedia.org immediately as a threat of violence. "Specifically identifiable individuals" can include article subjects, Wikipedians, and really anyone mentioned by their full name. If the accusation/material is potentially libelous, it should be forwarded to the oversight team for review as well.
3	Purely disruptive material	Hey, take a look at (horrific shock site loaded with viruses), it's free and it's awesome! LULZ!	User:Example is a jerk I'm really mad at User:Example and I hope they feel bad about what they did Spam, e.g. hey, take a look at (my social media page, my blog, etc) It's awesome!	Example could link to a website that has a high risk of harming the visitor's device with malware.
4	Oversightable material	I did some digging and found out that User:Example lives at 742 Evergreen Terrace in Springfield, Ohio. His phone number is 937-555-5555. His email address is fakeemail@example.com, and he works the night shift at the Kwik-E-Mart on the Dixie Highway.	User:Example lives in Ohio according to their userpage	Personal information, such as this example, includes almost any material that is (or looks like it might be) actual claims, facts, hints, or allusions to non-public, personal, or private information. (See WP:SIGHT and WP:OUTING). It does not matter whether the privacy breaching material was posted by the user themselves or by a third party, whether in good or bad faith, recently or in the past, whether accurate, whether the target is identifiable to the administrator, nor whether it is a statement, pointed speculation, or implied—all personal information should be suppressed. The only exception (besides the personal information of someone who already has a Wikipedia article) is a user's own personal information, which they (but not any other user) are perfectly entitled to post.
5	Valid deletion under deletion policy	(add example here)	(add example here)	These are cases not covered by the first three criteria but still merit revision deletion without the need of being suppressed. This includes serious cases of vandalism and spam but also after making history merges and solving cut-and-paste moves.
6	Non-contentious housekeeping	(N/A)	(N/A)	Criterion 6 of the revision deletion criteria is applicable should an administrator make a mistake in using the RevisionDelete feature (such as forgetting to redact something that should be or redacting something that should not be).