{{deletion essay}} There exists on Wikipedia a number of processes for decision-making about the inclusion or otherwise of content. These can be organised into the hierarchy below, with decisions taken at each level overruling decisions taken at lower levels.
Hierarchy edit
{!class=wikitable
!Level!!Process!!Appeal process!!Notes
|-
|1||WP:JIMBO||Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) (excluding appeals of ArbCom decisions)||Jimbo remains the ultimate arbitrator of content, but exercises this right almost never. All Jimbo's actions are theoretically appealable to the Arbitration Committee but as the ArbCom does not deal with content, and no content decision has been appealed to the committee it is at present undefined what would happpen.
|-
|2||Wikipedia:Office actions||Email to the Wikimedia Foundation office or Jimbo
DMCA counter-notice (if appropriate)||OFFICE actions are usually regarding legal matters so appeals require a sound factual basis.
|-
|3||WP:OTRS||Email to OTRS or Wikimedia Foundation office||OTRS review evidence of permission to use works and so determine whether given text or media constitute a copyright violation
|-
|4|Confirmed copyright issues; other legal problems||WP:OTRS or WP:DRV||Appeals need to show either new evidence, or that the existing evidence was interpreted incorrectly. Consensus that a copyrighted image does or does not meet the Non-free content criteria overrules suspicions and assertions to the contrary.
|-
|5||Suspected copyright issues||XfD or WP:DRV; WP:OTRS||Evidence that text or media is or is not a copyright violation is normally required to overturn a decision. Consensus that a copyrighted image does or does not meet the Non-free content criteria overrules suspicions and assertions to the contrary.
|-
|6||
DRV XfD RfC Speedy deletion PROD Talk page WP:BOLD