Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over

"Wikipedia:STARTOVER" redirects here. For "Clean start" policy for users, see Wikipedia:Clean start.

Sometimes fire and brimstone seems to be the only way to save an article.

A page (including all the versions in history) can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over, i.e., create it de novo, usually by blanking the page and replacing it with a decent version. The purpose of TNT is to produce a decent article (to "start over"), rather than total removal of the subject from Wikipedia.

Copyright violations, undisclosed paid sock farms, extensive cases of advocacy or improper use of large language models, blatant advertising, collections of random information, etc. are frequently blown up.

Anyone can start over on any page, immediately, without first waiting to get the bad version deleted, as long as their version isn't itself a copyright or WP:PAID violation, or a total copy of the deleted content. Just click the [Edit] button, blank the bad contents, and start over now. This logic may also be applied to sections or parts of an article. Sometimes, the damage is fixable but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over; in such a case, just start over. While Wikipedia:Editing policy requires editors to preserve appropriate information, it does not require editors to preserve bad writing or bad content. You can just start over without preserving the prior version.

How to blow it up and start over

1. Check the page history to make sure that the current mess isn't the result of an edit that you could simply revert.
2. Click the [Edit] button.
3. Press Control+A to select all.
4. Press ← Backspace to blank the current contents.
5. Type one or two appropriate sentences about the subject, e.g., "Paul Politician is a Ruritanian politician who was elected to the Ruritanian National Legislature in 1998 and 2004.". Per policy, the article's content does not need to be perfect, but ideally the new version would include a credible claim of significance or other indication of why the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article.
6. Re-add any reliable sources and appropriate categories.
7. Type an edit summary that explains what you are doing, e.g., "Re-writing per WP:TNT".
8. Press the big blue button to publish your changes.

Role of deletion

Deleting severely deficient articles through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is at least partially grounded in policy:

• WP:DEL-REASON says: "Reasons for deletion include [...] 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia."
  • "Not suitable for an encyclopedia" means that deletion is appropriate when even a good version of the page would violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (e.g., a list of phone numbers or a persuasive essay). Avoid citing TNT as a deletion rationale in these cases, as citing the relevant section of WP:NOT is a much stronger argument. In particular, if the subject fails WP:NOT, then you probably don't want editors to "blow it up and start over"; instead, you want to get rid of it and keep it gone.
• WP:ATD says: "If an article on a notable topic contains too many claims that fail the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be deleted by consensus at Articles for deletion or reduced to a stub."
  • Avoid trying to get an article deleted when the subject is notable. Instead, reduce it to a stub.

TNT should be invoked during AfD with caution.

• Deleting articles for the purpose of cleanup is often contentious, as expressed at WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:UGLY, WP:NOEFFORT, and WP:Deletion is not cleanup. While there are a few editors who try to use deletion as cleanup, hoping that the threat of imminent deletion will force other volunteers to immediately improve articles, this is usually considered inappropriate.
• It's embarrassing if you invoke TNT because you think the article is "hopelessly irreparable", and then someone proves you wrong by repairing the article.
• Additionally, arguing for deletion because of article quality alone is considered a type of soft deletion; it does not say anything about the subject's notability, and therefore editors can re-create the page later. Consequently, if you believe that Wikipedia should not have an article on this subject, it's better to cite a stronger rationale for deletion.
• Never try to get an article deleted merely because you want to be listed as the first editor of the new version (e.g., for the Wikipedia:Four Award).

Non-articles

You can't edit the associations and social history of a page, even if you delete every trace of that page on the wiki. This is particularly a problem with perennial policy proposals that have been the subject of so much fighting that even a brilliant, earth-shattering work of genius would face significant opposition just because it's proposal #3941. And no, your version probably isn't a brilliant, earth-shattering work of genius. Your best bet under these circumstances is to let the fight go and let the perennial warriors blow each other up (or at least wear each other out) and try again later, if at all.

See also

• WP:STUBIFY – when you blank nearly all the content, leaving only a short description and reliable sources
• WP:Delete the junk
• WP:Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!
• WP:Deletion to Quality Award
• WP:TNTTNT, a counterpoint
• WP:NPOV deletion
• Wikipedia:Does deletion help?