Wikipedia:Link rot - Wikipedia
Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Contribute
Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
Special pages
Search
Search
Appearance
Donate
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Donate
Create account
Log in
Contents
move to sidebar
hide
(Top)
1
Preventing link rot
Toggle Preventing link rot subsection
1.1
Automatic archiving
1.2
Manual archiving
1.3
Alternative methods
2
Repairing a usurped link
3
Repairing a dead link
Toggle Repairing a dead link subsection
3.1
Searching
3.2
Internet archives
4
Mitigating a dead link
5
Keeping dead links
6
Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites
7
Glossary
8
See also
Toggle See also subsection
8.1
Essays
8.2
Tools and how-to guides
8.3
Bots
9
External links
10
Notes
11
References
Toggle the table of contents
Wikipedia:Link rot
50 languages
Afrikaans
العربية
বাংলা
Bosanski
閩東語 / Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄
کوردی
Čeština
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Eesti
فارسی
Suomi
Galego
עברית
Magyar
Հայերեն
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
ქართული
한국어
Latina
Lietuvių
Македонски
മലയാളം
Bahasa Melayu
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
Norsk nynorsk
Norsk bokmål
ଓଡ଼ିଆ
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
Polski
Português
Русский
سنڌي
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
සිංහල
Simple English
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Svenska
తెలుగు
Türkçe
اردو
Tiếng Việt
粵語
中文
Edit links
Project page
Talk
English
Read
View source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
View source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Print/export
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikidata item
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How to prevent or repair broken links
This page is about (primarily) link rot in external links. For broken section links within Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors. For internal links which point to deleted or non-existent articles, see WP:REDLINKS. For other uses, see Wikipedia:Citing sources § Preventing and repairing dead links.
"WP:LR" redirects here. For Lua requests, see Wikipedia:Lua requests.
To request URL changes, see WP:Link rot/URL change requests.
This help page is a how-to guide.
It explains concepts or processes used by the Wikipedia community. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and may reflect varying levels of consensus.
Shortcuts
WP:LRWP:LR
WP:404WP:404
WP:ROTWP:ROT
WP:BADLINKWP:BADLINK
WP:LINKROTWP:LINKROT
This page in a nutshell: Steps may be taken to reduce or repair dead external links. Do not remove citations simply because they have URLs which no longer work.
Like most large websites, Wikipedia suffers from the phenomenon known as link rot, where external links become dead, as the linked web pages or complete websites disappear, change their content, or move without HTTP redirection.[a]
Link rot is a significant danger to Wikipedia because of the reliability policy and source citation guideline.
In general, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Tools, procedures, and processes are available as outlined in this document.
Preventing link rot
Shortcut
WP:PLRTWP:PLRT
There are multiple ways to prevent link rot and to make it easier to recover if a website is rearranged later.  None of these methods are required by any policy or guideline.
Automatic archiving
Links added by editors to the English Wikipedia mainspace are automatically saved to the Wayback Machine within about 24 hours (though in practice not every link is getting saved for reasons ranging from quirks of a website's code to robots.txt preventing a website from being archived). This is done with a program called "NoMore404" which Internet Archive runs and maintains; other language wiki sites are included. It monitors EventStreams API, extracts new external URLs and adds a snapshot to the Wayback. This system became active sometime after 2015, though previous efforts were also made.
As of 2026, there is a Wikipedia bot and tool called WP:IABOT that automates fixing link rot. It runs continuously, checking all articles on Wikipedia if a link is dead, adding archives to Wayback Machine (if not yet there), and replacing dead links in the wikitext with an archived version. This bot runs automatically but it can also be directed by end users through its web interface. It is available when viewing any page's history, located near the top of the page on the line of "External Tools", with the "Fix dead links" option.
As of 2026, the periodic bot WP:WAYBACKMEDIC checks for link rot in the archive links themselves. Archive databases are dynamic: archives move or go missing, new ones are added, etc. This bot maintains existing archive links on English Wikipedia. It also archives resources on request at WP:URLREQ. It is a flexible tool that can carry out many custom jobs such as URL migration/move, usurped domains, soft-404 discovery and repair.
Manual archiving
See also: Help:Archiving a source
Note
Archive links are recommended, but not required.  If you can't find a trustworthy option, then don't add a link.
Suggestions for ways to manually improve archiving:
Avoid bare URLs. A bare URL looks like this:  https://www.example.com  Add a description (e.g., the title of the page, the author's name, the publication date, etc.).  These can be formatted by hand, but many editors prefer to use citation templates such as {{cite web}} for citations.  Do not use citation templates or {{webarchive}} for External links sections per WP:ELCITE and WP:ELDEAD.
Use a web archiving service such as Internet Archive. A complete list is available at WP:List of web archives on Wikipedia. Within citation templates, put the archive URL in |archive-url= and add an |archive-date=. If the link is still valid, include |url-status=live, otherwise set |url-status=dead.
To add more than one archive URL, as extra insurance against provider outage, {{webarchive}} accepts up to 10 archive provider URLs. The |format=addlarchives option produces output appropriate for trailing a CS1|2 template. e.g. {{cite web|archive-url=..}}{{webarchive|format=addlarchive|url=..|url2=..|url3..}} will show 4 archive URLs (one from the cite web and three from the webarchive).
If the link is still live but not yet archived, visit the web site of the archive service of your choice and request that the page be archived.
Run WP:IABOT on pages via its user interface.
Alternative methods
Most citation templates have a |quote= parameter that can be used to store text quotes of the source material. This can be used to store a limited amount of text from the source within the citation template. This is especially useful for sources that cannot be archived with web archiving services. It can also provide insurance against failure of the chosen web archiving service. Storing the entire text of the source is not appropriate under fair use policies, so choose only the most important portions of the text that most support the assertions in the Wikipedia article. Where applicable, public domain materials can be copied to Wikisource.
Repairing a usurped link
Main page: Wikipedia:Link rot/Usurpations
When a domain on the Internet expires, anyone is allowed to pay for and control that domain. Some organizations actively seek these domains and "usurp" them to create spam and scam sites. To repair an external link to one of these sites from Wikipedia, remove the link and replace it with an archived version of the original as described at Wikipedia:Link rot/Usurpations.
There is an automated system for repairing links to entire usurped domains. See WP:URLREQ to register all links in a domain for usurpation treatment.
Repairing a dead link
Shortcut
WP:DEADLINKWP:DEADLINK
"WP:DEADLINK" redirects here. For the guideline on what to do when a link is dead (including potential removal of the cited material), see WP:DEADREF.
There are several ways to try to repair a dead link, detailed below. In general, avoid removing citations (or cited material) simply because a URL no longer works, especially if the citation is formatted with other information (like a title, author, date and publication name) that could alternatively be used to find the source.
Searching
If the dead link includes enough information (article title, names, etc.) it is often possible to use it to find the web page at a different location, either on the same site or elsewhere.
Often web pages simply move within the same site. A site index or site-specific search feature is a useful place to locate the moved page, searching for the title or other information. If these tools are not available, many Internet search engines allow a search on a specified site. For example, with Google add site:en.wikipedia.org to the search string to search English Wikipedia only. Occasionally changing http:// to https:// works.
Failing this, searching the Web for the page title can find alternative sites. Searching the Web for the data to support can find a different source.
A technique that often works if precise text from the source is available, usually from an archived copy, is to search either the original domain or the entire Web for an exact "quoted" text string long enough to be likely to be unique, to find a link moved within the original site, to another site, or a different source of the same documentation. Any link found needs quickly checking to be sure that it is either identical, or at least still supports the Wikipedia article text. For example, try searching the Web, or site:en.wikipedia.org, for "a search is likely to find this page because it contains this string".
If you find a suitable new URL, then you can edit the parameters within the citation.  If the citation uses one of the common citation templates (e.g. {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{Citation}}), you can:
Change the |url= to point to the new URL;
Change or add |access-date= to refer to the current date unless the new URL is a stable source with a publication date.
Internet archives
Check for archived versions at one of the many web archive services. The "Big 2" archive services are web.archive.org and webcitation.org. archive.today was often used, but is now deprecated and not included in reference lists; invocations should be removed. These account for over 90% of all archives on Wikipedia, with web.archive.org being over 80% of all archive links. Other archive services are listed at WP:WEBARCHIVES. Add-ons (extensions) are available for most browsers to search for archived copies, with names such as Resurrect pages.
Bookmarklets to check common archive sites for archives of the current page
(all open in a new tab or window)
Archive site
Bookmarklet
Archive.org
javascript:void(window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href))
UKGWA
javascript:void(window.open('https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/*/'+location.href))
If multiple archive dates are available, use the one that is most likely to be the contents of the page seen by the editor who entered the reference on the |access-date=. If that parameter is not specified, a search of the article's revision history can be performed to determine when the link was added to the article.
View the archive to verify that it contains valid page information. Usually dates closer to the time the link was placed in the Wikipedia page, or earlier, are more likely to show valid information.
If you find a suitable archive URL, then you can add it to the citation.  If any of the common citation templates ({{Citation}}) or any "cite" template such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc.) is used you can edit as follows:
Leave the |url= unchanged, pointing to the source URL.
Add |archive-url=, pointing to the archive URL.
Add |archive-date=, specifying the date when the archived copy was saved.  YYYY-MM-DD format is usually easiest but any format can be used.
Add or change |url-status=.  Use |url-status=dead (the default if omitted when |archive-url= is present) if the old URL does not work.  Use |url-status=unfit or |url-status=usurped if the old URL has been usurped for the purposes of spam, advertising, or is otherwise unsuitable (see WP:USURPURL). Use |url-status=live if |url= still works and still gives the correct information, but you want to preemptively add an |archive-url=. |url-status=deviated is also accepted.
Leave the |access-date= unchanged, referring to the date when a previous editor last accessed the |url=. Some editors consider that once a working |archive-url= has been established, the |access-date= parameter (which is not needed anyway if there is a stable date of publication) is redundant and should be removed.
Mitigating a dead link
Shortcut
WP:MDLIWP:MDLI
At times, all attempts to repair the link will be unsuccessful. In that event, consider finding an alternative source so that the loss of the original does not harm the verifiability of the article. Alternative sources about broad topics  are usually easily located. A simple search engine query might locate an appropriate alternative, but be extremely careful to avoid citing sources which derive their information from Wikipedia itself, and mirrors and forks of Wikipedia, which would violate Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Sometimes, finding an appropriate source is not possible, or would require more extensive research techniques, such as a visit to a library or the use of a subscription-based database. If that is the case, consider consulting with Wikipedia editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, the Wikipedia:Village pump, or Wikipedia:Help desk. Also, consider contacting experts or other interested editors at a relevant WikiProject.
Sometimes a link is dead because the website moved the URL (e.g. http://example.com moved to http://example.co.uk). If you discover a URL change like this, please submit a request at WP:URLREQ for a url move. A bot will make the change.
In general, the fact that a URL is broken does not mean that a source has ceased to exist entirely, and a broken URL in a citation does not mean it must be removed. See the guidance at WP:DEADREF for when it is appropriate to remove citations with dead links. Crucially, books, magazines, journals and other print sources exist offline, and continue to do so even if websites go down or change locations; the lack of a functioning URL for a book does nothing to decrease its value as a source for Wikipedia content. Permanently inaccessible convenience links for print sources can be removed, but the reference should be retained. Before removing a citation with a dead URL, consider whether it would be possible to track down the source without using the URL at all; if so, it should probably be kept.
Keeping dead links
Shortcut
WP:KDLWP:KDL
See also: Wikipedia:Citing sources § Preventing and repairing dead links
A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead. With a dead link, it is possible to determine if it has been cited elsewhere, or to contact the person originally responsible for the source. For example, one could contact the Yale Computer Science department if http://www.cs.yale.edu/~EliYale/Defense-in-Depth-PhD-thesis.pdf[dead link] were dead.
Place {{dead link|date=July 2026}} after the dead citation, immediately before the </ref> tag if applicable, leaving the original link intact. Marking dead links signals to editors and to link rot bots that this link needs to be replaced with an archived link or a more current source verifying the same information. Placing {{dead link}} also auto-categorizes the article into Articles with dead external links project category, and into specific monthly date range category based on |date= parameter.
If you attempt to fix the dead links and are unable to, please add the |fix-attempted=yes parameter, so that other editors know that the link is likely to be hopelessly dead.
Do not delete a citation solely because it has been tagged with {{dead link}} for a long time.
Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites
Shortcut
WP:EXTERNALROTWP:EXTERNALROT
Non-Wikimedia sites are also susceptible to link rot. Following a page move or page deletion, links to Wikipedia pages from other websites may break. In most page moves, a redirect will remain at the old page—this won't cause a problem. But if a page is completely deleted or usurped (i.e. replaced with other content) then link rot will have been caused on any external websites that link to it.
Replacement of page content with a disambiguation page may still cause link rot, but is less harmful because a disambiguation page is essentially a type of soft redirect that will lead the reader to the required content. If a page is usurped with content for another subject that shares its name, a hatnote may be placed at the top that directs readers to the original content on its new page—this again is a type of soft redirect, but less obvious. In these cases, readers arriving from an external rotten link should be able to find what they're looking for, but the situation is best avoided as they would have to get there via an additional page, potentially giving a poor impression of both Wikipedia and the linking website.
Because the Wikipedia software does not store Referer information, it will be impossible to tell how many external web pages will be affected by a move or deletion, but the risk of link rot will probably be greatest on older and higher profile pages. In truth, there is not a lot that can be done; maintenance of non-Wikimedia websites is not within the scope of being a Wikimedian, nor in most cases within our capability (although if they can be fixed, it would be helpful to do so). However, it may be good practice to think about the potential impact on other sites when deleting or moving Wikipedia pages, especially if no redirect or hatnote will remain. If a move or deletion is expected to cause significant damage, then this might be a factor to consider in WP:RM, WP:AFD and WP:RFD discussions, although other factors may carry more weight.
Glossary
Glossary of terms and concepts. See the book A Link Rot Bestiary.
Beyond-404. Conceptually and ideally, every link that is dead will return a status code of 404. In the wilds of the Internet, many pages that are "dead" can return other codes. This is the realm beyond-404, and often requires special tools and foreknowledge to detect and fix. It might account for 40% or more of all inoperable links. Some of the beyond-404 types are described in this glossary. Links can be combination of types, for example a URL that is: Mapped redirect --> Soft-404 --> Redirect --> Destination.
Bot Blocker. Any kind of mechanism that prevents automated tools from detecting the status of a page. Most common are CloudFlare, rate limiters and IP blockers. Bot Blockers can cause false 404s.
Hard-404 or Dead link. A page that returns 404 status code, a dead link.
Soft-404. A URL that redirects to a page with different content from the original. For example, https://example.com/page1.html redirects to https://example.com/home.html (redirection to home page). Soft-404s can be domain name squatters, blank pages, spam sites, bot blockers, rate limiters, the possibilities are endless. This is the most common type of "Beyond 404" dead link. Conceptually, the page does not return 404, but is also not returning the intended content, in effect a 404 and thus "soft". Methods of Soft-404 detection including foreknowledge, the redirect URL, the page title, and content on the page.
Crunchy-404. A URL that falls somewhere between a Soft-404 and Hard-404. The content is different from the original page, but it still has content relevant to the original. Depending on what information the reader seeks, it could be considered a dead link, or a live link, relative to the viewer.
Redirect. A URL that automatically redirects to another page (301 or 302)
Missing or Potential redirect.  A URL that is inoperable (404), but the desired page might exist on the live web at a different URL. It is missing redirect information.
Mapped redirect. A missing redirect that has been successfully mapped to the destination URL. Whoever made the map determines what happens next. If the domain owner has the map, they create redirects on the live web that work for everyone. This process is called Redirect mapping. Third parties can attempt to build a map using other techniques such as ruled and inferred redirect mapping.
Ruled and Inferred redirect mapping. Methods for mapping missing redirects. Ruled redirect mapping works by transformation rules eg. a rule to change ".co.uk" -> ".com". Inferred redirect mapping guesses what the new URL might be by parsing information from other sources, such as the |title= or |date= of a citation. An inferred mapped redirect might have multiple guesses that are added to an inference table which are checked until one is found to work.
Archived or Ghost redirect. Redirect link rot. For example, a 301 header was deleted and became a 404, but the old 301 information is still preserved in the Wayback Machine. Useful to discover redirect information no longer on the live web. See also Ghostredir repo.
Soft-200 or False 404. A URL that appears to be dead but is actually live. This can be caused by bot blockers or a misconfiguration.
URL Move (or Migration). When a URL is moved from one scheme to another, for example migrating https://example.com/main.html to https://arthur.com/main.html .. the remote site changed domain names. Most of the time, sites will leave some of the old URLs behind and not migrate all of them, they typically turn into 404s and missing redirects. When making URL Move on Wikipedia it is thus imperative to verify the new URL works. When it is not possible to verify (such as a Bot Blocker) this is called a "Blind URL Move".
Content drift. When content at a static URL changes with time. For example team rankings at https://espn.com/mlb/rangers/standings.html changes on a weekly basis. Weather and financial data are other classic examples. Even though the URL may be live, it is functionally dead, the page no longer displays the intended content, it is a variety of soft-404.
See also
Essays
Wikipedia:Archive your sources
Wikipedia:Build content to endure
Wikipedia:Offline sources
Tools and how-to guides
Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests – request bot help to maintain URLs for a given domain name
Help:Using the Wayback Machine – how-to guide
Special:LinkSearch – to find all the pages that contain a particular URL
Note: LinkSearch can be imperfect. For a more precise search: insource:domain.com insource:/([.]|\/)domain[.]com/.
Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Pre-emptive archiving – brief guide on how to use various archiving services
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links
Wikipedia:External links#Longevity of links – prescribes removal of dead URLs from the "External links" section
Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations – the backlog of articles containing bare URLs at risk of link rot, sub-categorised by month
Category:Articles with dead external links – the backlog of articles containing dead links, sub-categorised by month
Bots
InternetArchiveBot (IABot) – automatically fixes dead links whenever possible, and tags them when it isn't
WaybackMedic-automatically fixes dead links that are difficult to determine, other general fixes
User:Legobot – can mass tag links with {{dead link}}. Requests can be made at User talk:Legoktm.
External links
Official Wayback add-on for Firefox and Chrome[b]
Resurrect Pages, a third-party add-on tool provides links to seven cache/archive websites upon coming across a dead link. (Firefox)
Webcache, add-on for Opera. (discontinued; newer similar add-ons available)
weblinkchecker.py—script from the Python Wikipedia Bot collection which finds broken external links.
Link-dispenser a Toolforge tool that identifies dead links in citations
Backlink Checker, to search for potential link rot on non-Wikimedia sites
"Some URLs Are Immortal, Most Are Ephemeral" (Archived 22 September 2024 at the Wayback Machine), detailed analysis of URL lifespans
Notes
^ URLs have a median lifespan of about one year.[1]
^ Documentation at
"Save Pages in the Wayback Machine". Internet Archive Help Center. 24 August 2018.
References
^
"2024-09-20: Some URLs Are Immortal, Most Are Ephemeral". Ws-dl.blogspot.com. Retrieved April 5, 2026.
v
t
e
Wikipedia essays (?)
Building, editing, and deletion
Philosophy
Articles are more important than policy
Articles must be written
All Five Pillars are equally important
Avoid vague introductions
Civil POV pushing
Cohesion
Competence is required
Concede lost arguments
Content philosophies
Dissent is not disloyalty
Don't lie
Don't search for objections
Duty to comply
Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country
Editors will sometimes be wrong
Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia
Explanationism
External criticism of Wikipedia
Galileo complex
Here to build an encyclopedia
Leave it to the experienced
Levels of competence
Levels of consensus
Most ideas are bad
Need
Not broken is ugly
Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction
Not every article can be a Featured Article
The one question
Oversimplification
Paradoxes
Pave the path
Paraphrasing
POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
Process is important
Product, process, policy
Purpose
Reasonability rule
Systemic bias
There is no seniority
Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
Tendentious editing
The role of policies in collaborative anarchy
The rules are principles
Trifecta
We are absolutely here to right great wrongs
Wikipedia in brief
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
Wikipedia is a community
Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Wikipedia is written by humans, for humans
Article construction
100K featured articles
Abandoned stubs
Acronym overkill
Adding images improves the encyclopedia
Advanced text formatting
Akin's Laws of Article Writing
Alternatives to the "Expand" template
Amnesia test
A navbox on every page
An unfinished house is a real problem
Archive your sources
Article revisions
Articles have a half-life
Autosizing images
Avoid mission statements
Be neutral in form
Beef up that first revision
Blind men and an elephant
BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
Build content to endure
Cargoculting
Cherrypicking
Chesterton's fence
Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books
Citation overkill
Citation underkill
Common-style fallacy
Concept cloud
Creating controversial content
Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability
Dictionaries as sources
Don't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia
Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
Don't get hung up on minor details
Don't hope the house will build itself
Don't panic
Don't "teach the controversy"
Editing on mobile devices
Editors are not mindreaders
Encourage the newcomers
Endorsements (commercial)
Featured articles may have problems
Formatting bilateral relations articles
Formatting bilateral relations templates
Fruit of the poisonous tree
Give an article a chance
Gotfryd custom
How to write a featured article
Identifying and using independent sources
History sources
Law sources
Primary sources
Science sources
Style guides
Tertiary sources
Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats
Introduction to structurism
Link rot
Mine a source
Merge Test
Minors and persons judged incompetent
"Murder of" articles
Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography
Not everything needs a navbox
Not everything needs a template
Nothing is in stone
Obtain peer review comments
Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area
Permastub
Potential, not just current state
Presentism
Principle of Some Astonishment
The problem with elegant variation
Pro and con lists
Printability
Publicists
Put a little effort into it
Restoring part of a reverted edit
Robotic editing
Sham consensus
Source your plot summaries
Specialized-style fallacy
Spoons versus forks
Stublet
Stub Makers
Run an edit-a-thon
Temporary versions of articles
Tertiary-source fallacy
There are no shortcuts to neutrality
There is no deadline
There is a deadline
The deadline is now
Topics to avoid
Try not to leave it a stub
What is a reliable source
Understanding Wikipedia's content standards
Walled garden
What an article should not include
Wikipedia is a work in progress
Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion
The world will not end tomorrow
Write the article first
Writing better articles
Content additions
Avoid thread mode
Copyediting reception sections
Coup
Don't throw more litter onto the pile
Gender-neutral language
Myth vs fiction
Proseline
Reading in a flow state
Turning biology research into a Wikipedia article
Use our own words
We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions
Write the article first
Writing about women
Writing better articles
Deletion
Adjectives in your recommendations
AfD is not a war zone
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews
Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions
Arguments to make in deletion discussions
Avoid repeated arguments
Before commenting in a deletion discussion
But there must be sources!
Confusing arguments mean nothing
Content removal
Counting and sorting are not original research
Delete or merge
Delete the junk
Deletion is not cleanup
Does deletion help?
Does merging help?
Don't attack the nominator
Don't confuse stub status with non-notability
Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
Emptying categories out of process
Follow the leader
How the presumption of notability works
How to save an article nominated for deletion
I just don't like it
Identifying blatant advertising
Identifying test edits
Immunity
Keep it concise
Liar liar pants on fire
No Encyclopedic Use
Notability is not everything
Nothing
Nothing is clear
Overzealous deletion
Relisting can be abusive
Relist bias
The Heymann Standard
Unopposed AFD discussion
Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole
Why was the page I created deleted?
What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion
When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork
Zombie page
Civility
The basics
Accepting other users
Apology
Autistic editors
Being right isn't enough
Contributing to complicated discussions
Divisiveness
Don't retaliate
Editors' pronouns
Edit at your own pace
Encouraging the newcomers
Enjoy yourself
Expect no thanks
How to be civil
Maintaining a friendly space
Negotiation
Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors
Please say please
Relationships with academic editors
Thank you
Too long; didn't read
Truce
Unblock perspectives
We are all Wikipedians here
You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy
A thank you never hurts
A weak personal attack is still wrong
Advice for hotheads
An uncivil environment is a poor environment
Be the glue
Beware of the tigers!
Civility warnings
Deletion as revenge
Duty to comply
Failure
Forgive and forget
It's not the end of the world
Nobody cares
Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals
On Wikipedia no one knows you're a dog
Old-fashioned Wikipedian values
Profanity, civility, and discussions
Revert notification opt-out
Shadowless Fists of Death!
Staying cool when the editing gets hot
The grey zone
The last word
There is no Divine Right of Editors
Most ideas are bad
Nothing is clear
Reader
The rules of polite discourse
There is no common sense
Two wrongs don't make a right
Wikipedia clichés
Wikipedia is not about winning
Wikipedia should not be a monopoly
Writing for the opponent
Dos
Assume good faith
Assume the assumption of good faith
Assume no clue
Avoid personal remarks
Avoid the word "vandal"
Be a humble article creator
Be excellent to one another
Be pragmatic
Beyond civility
Call a spade a spade
Candor
Deny recognition
Desist
Discussing cruft
Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
Encourage full discussions
Get over it
How to lose
Imagine others complexly
Just drop it
Keep it concise
Keep it down to earth
Mind your own business
Say "MOBY"
Mutual withdrawal
Read before commenting
Read the room
Settle the process first
Wikipedia:Stop it
You can search, too
Don'ts
Wikipedia:Because I can
Civil POV pushing
Cyberbullying
Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack
Don't be a fanatic
Don't be a jerk
Don't be an ostrich
Don't be ashamed
Don't be a WikiBigot
Don't be high-maintenance
Don't be inconsiderate
Don't be obnoxious
Don't be prejudiced
Don't be rude
Don't be the Fun Police
Don't bludgeon the process
Don't call a spade a spade
Don't call people by their real name
Don't call the kettle black
Don't call things cruft
Don't come down like a ton of bricks
Don't cry COI
Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify
Don't eat the troll's food
Don't fight fire with fire
Don't give a fuck
Don't help too much
Don't ignore community consensus
Don't knit beside the guillotine
Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature
Don't remind others of past misdeeds
Don't shout
Don't spite your face
Don't take the bait
Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs
Don't template the regulars
Don't throw your toys out of the pram
Don't tilt at windmills
Do not insult the vandals
Griefing
Hate is disruptive
Jew-tagging
Nationalist editing
No angry mastodons
just madmen
No ableism
No Nazis
No racists
No Confederates
No queerphobia
No, you can't have a pony
Passive aggression
POV railroad
Sealawyering
Superhatting
There are no oracles
There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns
You can't squeeze blood from a turnip
UPPERCASE
WikiRelations
WikiBullying
WikiCrime
WikiHarassment
WikiHate
WikiLawyering
WikiLove
WikiPeace
Neutrality
Academic bias
Activist
Advocacy
Avoid thread mode
Be neutral in form
Blind men and an elephant
Cherrypicking
Civil POV pushing
Coatrack
Controversial articles
Creating controversial content
Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability
Criticism
Describing points of view
Don't "teach the controversy"
Endorsements
Inaccuracy
Let the reader decide
Myth vs fiction
NPOV dispute
Neutral and proportionate point of view
Not Wikipedia's fault
POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
Partisans
Partisanship
Presentism
Pro and con lists
Systemic bias
Tendentious editing
There are no shortcuts to neutrality
Wikipedia:Truth
We are absolutely here to right great wrongs
We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions
What false balance is not
What is fringe?
Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat
Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Yes, it is promotion
Notability
Advanced source searching
All high schools can be notable
Alternative outlets
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Articles with a single source
Avoid template creep
Bare notability
Big events make key participants notable
Businesses with a single location
But it's true!
Common sourcing mistakes
Clones
Coatrack
Discriminate vs indiscriminate information
Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity
Every snowflake is unique
Existence ≠ Notability
Existence does not prove notability
Extracting the meaning of significant coverage
Google searches and numbers
How the presumption of notability works
High schools
Historical/Policy/Notability/Arguments
Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
Independent sources
Inherent notability
Insignificant
Just because BFDI has an article doesn't mean you can add fancruft about it
Masking the lack of notability
Make stubs
Minimum coverage
News coverage does not decrease notability
No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
No one cares about your garage band
No one really cares
Notability and tornadoes
Notability cannot be purchased
Notability comparison test
Notability is not everything
Notability is not a level playing field
Notability is not a matter of opinion
Notability is not relevance or reliability
Notability means impact
Notabilitymandering
Not all Vocaloid songs deserve their own article
Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article
No special considerations
Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability
Offline sources
One sentence does not an article make
Overreliance upon Google
Perennial websites
Popularity ≠ Notability
Read the source
Red flags of non-notability
Reducing consensus to an algorithm
Run-of-the-mill
Solutions are mixtures and nothing else
Significance is not a formula
Source content comes first!
Sources must be out-of-universe
Subjective importance
Slow news day
Third-party sources
Topics to avoid
Trivial mentions
Video links
Vanispamcruftisement
What BLP1E is not
What is and is not routine coverage
What notability is not
What to include
Why was BFDI not on Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is not Crunchbase
Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé
Two prongs of merit
Two sources are good enough
Humorous
Adminitis
Ain't no rules says a dog can't play basketball
Akin's Laws of Article Writing
Alternatives to edit warring
ANI flu
Anti-Wikipedian
Anti-Wikipedianism
Articlecountitis
Asshole John rule
Assume bad faith
Assume faith
Assume good wraith
Assume stupidity
Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith
Avoid using the preview button
Avoid using wikilinks
Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
Barnstaritis
Before they were notable
Be the fun police
BOLD, revert, revert, revert cycle
Boston Tea Party
Butterfly effect
CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh?
Case against LLM-generated articles
Complete bollocks
Counting forks
Counting juntas
Crap
Delete the main page
Diffusing conflict
Don't stuff beans up your nose
Don't-give-a-fuckism
Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!
Don't delete the main page
Editcountitis
Edits Per Day
Editsummarisis
Editing under the influence
Embrace Stop Signs
Emerson
Fart
Five Fs of Wikipedia
Seven Ages of Editor, by Will E. Spear-Shake
Go ahead, vandalize
How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
How to get away with UPE
How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle
How to vandalize correctly
How to win a citation war
If you have a pulse
Ignore all essays
Ignore all user warnings
Ignore every single rule
Is that even an essay?
Keep beating the horse
List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create
Mess with the templates
My local pond
Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them
Legal vandalism
List of jokes about Wikipedia
LTTAUTMAOK
No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
No episcopal threats
No one cares about your garage band
No one really cares
No, really
No self attacks
Notability is not eternal
Oops Defense
Play the game
Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
Please bite the newbies
Please do not murder the newcomers
Pledge of Tranquility
Project S.C.R.A.M.
R-e-s-p-e-c-t
Requests for medication
Requirements for adminship
Rouge admin
Rouge editor
Sarcasm is really helpful
Sausages for tasting
Spaling Muich?
Template madness
The first rule of Wikipedia
The Five Pillars of Untruth
The Night Before Wikimas
The Truth
Things that should not be surprising
The WikiBible
Watchlistitis
We are deletionist!
Why is BFDI on Wikipedia?
Why you shouldn't write articles with ChatGPT, according to ChatGPT
Wikipedia is an MMORPG
WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
Yes, falsely
Yes legal threats
Yes personal attacks
You don't have to be mad to work here, but
You should not write meaningless lists
About
About essays
Essay guide
Value of essays
Difference between policies, guidelines and essays
Don't cite essays as if they were policy
Avoid writing redundant essays
Finding an essay
Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines
About policies and guidelines
Policies
Guidelines
How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance
Policy writing is hard
Essay search
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Link_rot&oldid=1364550243"
Categories:
Wikipedia how-to
Wikipedia essays about building the encyclopedia
Wikipedia maintenance
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia semi-protected project pages
Webarchive template wayback links
This page was last edited on 17 July 2026, at 04:29 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License;
additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Legal & safety contacts
Code of Conduct
Developers
Statistics
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Search
Search
Toggle the table of contents
Wikipedia:Link rot
50 languages
Add topic