Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 12

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think this policy needs to be a little bit more explicit—specifically in the lead section—when it comes to the prod eligibility of articles previously discussed at AfD, especially now that prodded articles that have been at AfD in the past get big red letters in the prod tag indicating that fact. I propose to revise the sentence in the lead paragraph "An article may be PRODed only once" to "An article may not be deleted under this process if it has been previously nominated for proposed deletion or discussed at

I also seem to recall that there is a consensus that an article deleted via AfD and subsequently recreated is eligible for prod as long as it does not fall under

No. If it's been to AfD once, it goes to AfD again... unless it's substantially identical, and then it's G4. PROD eligibility is supposed to be very straightforward and uncontroverial: no one has articulated a keep, ever, for the article. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If the recreation is not "substantially identical" (and, therefore, not under

CSD G4), then the fact that the page was recreated can count as an objection to proposed deletion. Of course, if the page's creator can be convinced (politely) to consent to deletion, then that would eliminate the need for another AfD (assuming there have been no major edits by other users). -- Black Falcon ^(talk

) 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If the re-created article is different enough to be ineligible for G4 then it is a totally new article that has never been prodded or AfD'd. It is therefore eligible for prod. We should be making routine maintenance easier, not erecting pointless roadblocks. Reyk _YO! 23:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Modify wording to require notification of PROD subject to clearly defined exceptions.

I think we owe it to article creators or significant contributors to let them know if an article is PRODed. The current wording:

The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed article deletion...

encourages notification, but does not require it. While there are legitimate exceptions (existing wording notes two exceptions), the best wording would require notification except in clearly defined circumstances.

Proposed wording:

The nominator will notify the article's creator or other significant contributors at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed article deletion. This should be done by adding the {{subst:PRODWarning|Name of Article}} tag, or other appropriate text. Prodding an article via Twinkle will automatically inform the article's creator.
Notification is not required:

• to a creator or significant contributor who is indef blocked
• to a creator or significant contributor who has not edited in the last year

Is there any rationale for leaving the notification decision to the whims of the nominator?--SPhilbrickT 21:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:CREEP would be one objection. At a minimum... you're asking someone to check the revision history for the creator and "significant contributors" (which is ill defined) AND check their contribution history to look for recent edits, and then check their logs to see if they've been blocked. That's before you even factor in the multiple notifications. And for all that work... you haven't so much as suggested there's a problem with the encyclopedia that this is supposed to fix... let alone offered evidence of that problem. As far as I can tell the PROD process is pretty balanced right now. Shooterwalker (talk
  ) 21:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to reduce process, not increase it. I think it is incumbent on the admin considering the deletion to check to see if the creator has been notified. It isn't hard to check. However, I noted a few where there was no notification. In one case, the editor was blocked, so i was fine with that decision. In another case, I saw no reason why the creator wasn't named, so I posted a question at the notifiers talk page. The response was that the notification wasn't necessary, and in this case it was a suspected single purpose account or spammer. Yet, I don't see any link to any such claim, so I either have to accept it without proof, or track it down myself. I don't accept that being a single purpose account exempts you from notification, so now I've sendspent some time looking into this one, and need to leave it to someone else who finds that acceptable, or knows the editor and has good reason not to notify. It would be so much easier if there were a single notice on the creator's page. It takes seconds; far less time than it takes to investigate why there is no notice.--SPhilbrickT 23:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm unconvinced. Ideally, the creator will watchlist any article they care about, and should see it within the 7-day window, but even if they don't, as soon as they notice the PROD'ed article is restored by request to deleting admin or
  WP:REFUND and is forever after immune to PRODs. This is a big contrast from AfD's, where deletion carries more permanence and presumption of correctness. The more tools we have to do this easily, the better, but I still do not believe the consequences are significant enough to mandate notification. Jclemens (talk
  ) 23:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be made mandatory. As has been mentioned, any editor who actually cares will have the article watchlisted, and the PROD template already makes notifying the creator very easy. I for one always notify the creator, except sometimes when the article is unambiguous and shameless spam- then I won't lower myself to do it. But I don't see the need to make it mandatory. I do have one suggestion though: if this proposal does get up, then it should also be made mandatory to notify a PRODding editor when you remove the PROD. Reyk _YO! 23:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the first ten items in the PROD queue, and the number of edits by the ten creators are:

3,123,2,2,3,2,1,5,3,2

How many editors with under ten edits even know what a watchlist is? I think we are being incredibly rude to potential new editors when we wipe their creation off the face of the earth, and don't even have the courtesy to tell them.--SPhilbrickT 13:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm very sympathetic to the

WP:BITE concerns, it seems to me that a new editor who does not yet know how to watchlist will not necessarily know how to check their user talk page for messages either. The thing that they are most likely to do is to take a look at the page they have created, and the PROD template will be visible there. --Tryptofish (talk

) 15:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair point that a new editor is likely to return to the one article they started. However, if the seven days have elapsed, then the message at the page is a bit cryptic. While they may not know what a user talk page is, they will see a yellow banner bringing them to their talk page until they visit it.

I just noticed that the PROD message tells them how to contest the PROD, but that advice no longer makes sense once the article is deleted. I realize I'm doing some speculating about how new editors will react; we ought to find a way to talk to some to see how they feel.--SPhilbrickT 16:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not sure we should be letting new editors create articles anymore. A better solution than trying to smooth over the

WP:BITE is to stop them from walking into the crocodile pit in the first place. Shooterwalker (talk

) 17:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

PROD or REDIRECT

Resolved

I came across a one line

• I would have done the redirect. "Pareto set" is an obvious search term, and there is nothing in the article's edit history that is remotely troublesome, so there's no real reason to delete it. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• When I'm processing prods and run across things that have obvious redirects, I often redirect in lieu of deletion. When there's enough to a PRODded article that there's probably a merge target, I will generally just de-PROD in that case. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I've changed it to a redirect. I thought that PROD would give change for discussion and objection; but I guess people can always revert if they don't like it. Thanks again. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Curious if this is the proper way to address a PROD. Seems to me that if the editor objects to the PROD, they should simply remove the tag. If they feel the article should be redirected instead, they should propose so on the talk page (or at AfD, if it comes to that). "Redirecting to avoid deletion" seems a bit like gaming the system, or at the very least somewhat sneaky. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely proper. I've done it myself sometimes. If you see a PROD that looks like a plausible redirect, why not being

bold and do the redirect? The tag is also removed, and so the PROD is addressed. I don't understand what kind of "gaming" you talk about: PROD is for uncontroversial deletions; if someone creates a redirect, it is no more uncontroversial. --Cyclopia^talk

02:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it counts as removing the tag, thus addressing the PROD, but it just seemed an odd rationale to me. It's like, "you don't think this should be deleted, but you also don't think it should be an article?" I understand redirecting because the topic isn't notable, but redirecting simply to avoid deletion of the content? Struck me as odd, possibly an attempt to avoid the topic going to AfD. Redirects can still be created after content is deleted, which avoids it being able to be reverted to a previous version & thus un-redirected. Ah well. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The main thing for me is if the redirect is a possible search term, for which we might have had a redirect if there weren't an article - this means that I'd be happy with redirects for most characters, and maybe unusually named TV episodes etc. to parent articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but typically if it's agreed through a process (PROD or AfD) that a topic isn't suitable for an article, but the title might be a search term, we delete the article and then recreate the title as a redirect. At least I thought that's how these things worked. I've got no problem with there being a redirect, I just hate having to keep an eye on them & reverting every time some anon reverts it back to its prior state. Wouldn't have to do that if the content had been deleted. Anyway, what's done is done I suppose. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha, well I'd see it as part of Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems in that a record of content is useful in case we want to harvest any of it for a parent article (eg list of characters etc.) which may not have happened in a redirect/close if the closing admin did not care to enlarge the parent article initially. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

One of my concerns about the Wikipedia is that the number of content contributors is inversely related to the number of wikilawyers. I am by no means alone in this concern, and the declining contribs is a worrying development for all of this. I am especially concerned that every deletion is another five articles never written, as potential contributors flee the project.

IMHO, one way to address this would be to make it as difficult to delete an article as it was to create it. A stub copied from a single source in a 5-minute edit? Fine, PROD. A multi-referenced article with 3-D graphics and tables? AfD. With this in mind, I have decided to take some time to patrol AfD, which often has numerous examples of lazy noms.

So imagine my surprise when I found that an entirely new lazy AfD mechanism had been invented to avoid all that tiring, well, work. Perusing the list I see all sorts of examples of obviously important topics where the nom hasn't done even the most basic ref search, and make no effort whatsoever to contact the author of the work. And yet the default action is delete!

I think this mechanism has far too much potential for abuse, and should be removed. If it's not a PROD/SD, then it's an AfD. If the candidate isn't "strong enough" for an AfD, then it shouldn't be deleted.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What lazy AfD mechanism you talk about that it's not PROD or AfD? In any case I totally agree with your concerns -there is definite bias towards deleting in the AfD/PROD "algorithms". --Cyclopia^talk 14:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

PROD2. I see now that I completely failed to mention that! Then again, in retrospect I think the same can be said for the entire PROD. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Suppose this tag was put on an article that has existed for four years and has had a no-references tag for two of those years. Some one comes along and removes this tag with an edit summary that says the subject is notable but does not add any sources and does not put anything on the article's talk page. What happens then? Haven't you lost all record of the tag on the article with no improvement to the article? JimCubb (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Then you can tag the article with {{

WP:AfD. But in the case of this article, that's an AfD that would be speedily closed as "keep". Sławomir Biały (talk

) 01:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the CITE craze is relatively recent. There are many older articles that are perfectly valid and might have been easily referenced at the time, but the style of the era didn't include them. Now, years later, the author is long gone. The mechanisms we have in place generally fail in these cases, and as PROD and AfD are populated primarily by people looking to delete stuff, this can be a problem. Err on the side of safety; if the article isn't complete pants, its best to leave it alone. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the rationale of requiring the jumping through the hoop and all the community investement in time that requires of going through a full AfD when a PROD tag has been removed in bad faith with no attempt to address the concerns?

I've been here since the early days. In the intervening time we have made it much harder to write new articles. New markup, new tools, new rules, yet no new editor. So the barrier to entry has grown dramatically, which is clearly seen in the greatly slowing contributions and reducing the user base.

During the same period of time, we've made it dramatically easier to delete information. PROD can be added in seconds by anyone, often using automated tools, and defaults to deleting the material unless the user carries out a very specific set of instructions.

AfD is hardly a difficult process. It too can be completely automated for posting, and requires admin oversight only when it's closing. This hardly seems egregious.

So then I propose Maury's Razor, "it should take approximately the same amount of time and effort to remove something from the Wiki as it did to create it". A stub article or cut-n-paste from another web page should be quick and easy to delete. A lengthy well-referenced article like

Photon belt

should take hours or days to delete.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. Firstly, Photon Belt isn't going to be deleted; well referenced articles generally aren't. Secondly, it is unfortunately true that many editors spend large amounts of time and effort on articles that are simply no good. Spam, elaborate hoaxes, various kinds of original research, excessive repetition of the plot of works of fiction- these are all things that can take a long time to write but should not take a long time to remove. As the encyclopedia gets bigger, it requires more and more effort to maintain it properly. Having to do this maintenance actually keeps people away from writing articles, so I very strongly oppose any effort to create artificial delays like the ones you're suggesting. Reyk _YO! 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(undent)Exactly. Photon Belt clearly took time to write, and therefore should automatically be granted exception from a PROD-like mechanism. If, on the other hand, the page was simply cut and pasted from some online source, then the author did not put as much effort into it, and a speedier deletion mechanism is fine. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Doing many many more faster faster faster without paying attention to quality is a recipe for disaster. Active Banana (^bananaphone

23:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If a user is removing prods en masse they can be stopped by posting at

WP:AN/I and the prods may even be replaced if a consensus is reached. Abductive (reasoning

) 23:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

See that no one has provided any strong feeling or particularly any rationale, I am going to start by removing the bolding. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some uncertainty about this, see

I suspect, but have absolutely no evidence, that a great majority of PRODs are declined by primary authors of the articles in question. The reason I have no evidence is that I can't think of a way to measure this. It's very easy to measure the number of PRODs by checking the category pages, but how would one check the number of declined PRODs? Any ideas? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If a PROD is removed by an IP sock of an indef-blocked user, may it be replaced? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's a banned user, then all edits are summarily rejected. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It (Syren Sexton) was, as the author concedes, a bad faith PROD. The PROD was removed (much) more because the subject was notable and less because the PROD was in bad faith. QED. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

PRODSUM isn't working properly, it's failing to parse half the PRODs right now. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been noted on DumbBot's talk page a couple of times over the past several days... Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose the lead be revised to read

Proposed deletion is a way for two editors to delete unmaintained articles through the passage of a short time where the article does not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion. If no editor objects after seven days from nomination, an admin uncontroversially may delete the nominated page to reduce the load on the AfD process. An article may be PRODed only once.

There are three steps:

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I came across a PROD that was deleted after only two days. The deleter stated that there's no rule saying you can't delete early. (1) appears to say otherwise, so I'm wondering if this is a rule or just some sort of suggestion? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

They can if the article meets a

speedy criteria. In the case of Michael W. Allen, if the deleting thought the article was "purely promotional", he should have put "CSD G11" in the deletion log instead of just quoting the PROD rationale. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 13:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So no need to relist under speedy first? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURO Active Banana (^bananaphone

15:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Phsaw. If you want to see a great example of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy in action, look no further than this page! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think PROD is the neatest of all Wikipedia's deletion methods. It's a bloody tag that can be added to the page, like "If no one opposes, I think this could be deleted" and can be removed by anybody. What's bureucratic about it? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Maury is right to question this. The word used is "should" not "must", but I would say that any admin who interprets this as permission to ignore the standard procedure and delete early is wikilawyering and undermining other editors' faith in a system which usually actually works. Though I generally favour a little flexibility in most policy wording to allow for unforeseen exceptional circumstances, I think if there is evidence the system is being abused or used in ways unlikely to be supported by consensus, maybe we should consider changing "should" to "must" in this case. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

1. An article or disambiguation page is nominated when an editor carefully reviews the article and substitutes the {{proposed deletion}} tag by placing {{subst:proposed deletion}} on the page.
2. If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.

What's that supposed to tell us here? There are 2 different templates (tags?)? One appeared out of nowhere and is now supposed to be replaced/substituted by another? and in step 2 another user is supposed to remove a template that already got replaced? Some rewriting might be required here--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• • What "substitute" means in this context is that the code {{subst:proposed deletion}} gets automatically replaced by the full text of the {{proposed deletion}} template when the page is saved. There's only one template involved. But you're right, the wording is a little obscure. I think I'll go tweak it. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What we must constantly bear in mind when designing deletion templates and their instructions, is that just under 90% of all

New Page Patrolling is being done by by the youngest and least experienced editors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk

) 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just pointing out that current description was hard to undertand for normal readers. However being easily comprehensible for normal readers is essential for our policy and guidelines, if we expect them actually being read, understood and used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#PROD_abuse alleging that administrators are deleting PROD'ed articles before seven days have elapsed. - Pointillist (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Does PROD only affect mainspace articles? While patrolling recent changes I came across User talk:76.103.117.9, which doesn't appear to meet any of the CSD criteria, but it also seems like it would be a waste of effort taking it to MfD. PROD seems like a good way of nominating this, but the wording on this page makes it seem like it is only for use in mainspace articles. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, forget that question - I've just seen that it is not applicable. This required some close reading though - would anyone mind if I made this information more obvious? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that this is clear enough. The project page mentions "article" throughout. Debresser (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's true, and I did register that it said "article" and not anything else. I just think that for people who are only glancing at the page, as I was, it is something that could be missed. I was thinking of adding something like this to the first paragraph: "Proposed deletion is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, and disambiguation pages; it cannot be used with userspace pages, templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace." How does this sound? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't hurt, I suppose, and add redirects to that list as well (that has happened at least once; see the RfD for

WT:CSD that said someone putting nonsense in another person's userspace was deletable under G1, so you were right to begin with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 05:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added the sentence to the policy page. Let me know if there's anything I missed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I came across a user who deprodded an article solely on the basis that redirects can't be prodded. I was about to give the user a gentle warning when I took a closer look at this policy and found that, lo and behold, it does state that redirects can't be prodded. Can someone please explain why this is the case? I'm pretty sure I've prodded redirects in the past that ended up getting deleted, though I have no way to be certain since I don't have access to my deleted contributions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has answered this question yet, sorry that it took so long. The answer is really simple though. Only articles can be eligible for PROD, and redirects aren't considered articles.

Disambiguation pages are considered articles for the most part. Other types of pages are also ineligible for PROD; user pages, files, essays, noticeboards, etc. -- Atama頭

21:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious redirects are properly taken to

talk

) 16:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why you have eliminated my photos of Pengov's paintings in Bled, in Žale and in the Parliament House of Slovenia. I have made these photos myself and I have dedicated a lot of my time to recover the work of this slovenian artist. I am very dissapointed with this violation of my work.--Oliver-Bonjoch (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

They were not deleted through proposed deletion (images aren't eligible for deletion that way anyway). Your concerns were addressed here; essentially there is a copyright problem with the images. -- Atama頭 22:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I wish to seek an agreement to amend the phrase "...and never discussed at AfD". If an article has been discussed at AfD with the result of 'delete', I think that it is unnecessary to decline a prod and require it to be taken back to AfD. However, if the article, or an earlier version, was kept at AfD, even if deleted by a subsequent AfD, then I agree that it is not uncontentious and the prod should be declined. I should like to rephrase:

• "...and never kept (including 'no consensus') at AfD".

May I invite views, please?

If an article was at AfD and even a single person didn't ask for deletion (even if they suggested a merge rather than keep) then deletion can't be considered uncontroversial. Making someone go back through AfDs to judge whether or not anyone objected back then defeats the purpose of prod being a simple way to delete uncontroversial articles. It's much easier to just say, if it went to AfD at all and people bothered to discuss its deletion, it is controversial enough to not be eligible for prod. Also, if an article was previously deleted through AfD and someone restored it, why would you bother with prod at all, why not just use

G4 deletion? If you can speedily delete it, why wait 7 days? -- Atama頭

19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that is an overly rigorous approach. If all AfD results are 'delete' then that should make subsequent deletion by Prod uncontroversial. The key point is that the new version must be different from those previously deleted otherwise it would be speedied; hence no-one has objected to the Prodded version.

talk

) 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose technically, if an article was deleted through AfD and later restored, then one of two things happens. If it's similar to the article that was previously deleted in discussion, and doesn't address the concerns in that AfD, then it can be speedily deleted. If the article is substantially different, then it isn't eligible for speedy deletion. But if it is substantially different, could it be considered a new article about the same subject? In which case, a proposed deletion might be valid, because it's technically a new article.

Again, though, I think the problem with this approach is that it complicates a process that only exists because it's easy. The only reason why we have proposed deletions is to avoid the fuss of an AfD. If you could gather support for that change in policy, more power to you, but I think it goes against the spirit of PROD. -- Atama頭 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Up to a couple of days ago, PRODSs expired exactly, to the minute, after seven days. Now the bot marks them as expired at midnight on the seventh day. Is this an intentional change?

I don't know but it's kind of annoying. I used to check the day's expired proposed deletions throughout the day, deleting articles when their durations expired, but having them all expire at the same time makes that difficult to do. The old method was better. -- Atama頭 16:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I should like to add at the end "Please check for, and delete, redirects to the deleted page". Some admins are simply deleting the Prodded pages and leaving dead-end redirects all over the place.

It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Deletion policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been asked and answered a thousand times already, but if a BLP PROD is declined because a source is found can an article be re-nominated with the "normal" PROD?

Yes (from the section "Sticky prod": This does not affect the regular prod process, which may still be used on BLPs, including BLPs from which the sticky prod has been legitimately removed.). Hut 8.5 20:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I could have actually read the page instead of instantly coming here. I must be getting lazy in my old age. Thanks for the pointer.

talk

) 21:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Scanning over the BOT list of PRODs, I find what appears to be a large majority of them are marked "[BLP] All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references." Many others in the list are also BLP-ish, non-notable sports figures or such. Why are these even PRODded, shouldn't they be SPEEDY? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"non-notable BLP" is not one of the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 16:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your question is at

WP:BLPPROD, which is similar to this policy, and an outgrowth of it, but not the same. I think what's confusing you is the language that says that a BLP "must have references". Our policy isn't that it must have references, or it's instantly deleted. Our policy is that it must have references for the proposed deletion to be contested. With a normal PROD, anyone can contest the proposed deletion for almost any reason and the PROD is no longer eligible, because deletion of the article would be inherently controversial and PROD is only for the uncontroversial deletion of articles (where nobody minds that the article will be deleted). BLPs are given a different treatment, though, if the BLPs lack any sources whatsoever. In those cases, the usual PROD procedure is followed, except the PROD cannot be contested unless a viable reference is given that verifies something (anything) in the article. If no sources are provided, the article is deleted despite objections. But it doesn't have to be deleted immediately, editors are given time to provide those sources. -- Atama頭

16:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand the policy. But given that BLP's are essentially what kicked off the massive referencing drive, and that PROD takes at least a week, it seems odd to me that this isn't grounds for a faster process of some sort. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think many agree with you, many don't. The 10 days was a compromise reached at the end of an epic debate, from what I hear. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I avoid those like the plague... Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed for the first time the little link on the left for "books". Useful, but shouldn't we have similar ones for BLP and other spin off rules? Or better yet, should this not be removed from the box, replaced with PRODLIST, and this link included into the main? I think PRODLIST is much more useful in a shortcut than books, especially considering all the other PROD-a-likes that are more used. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to the navbox at the bottom of the page that includes a link to the {{Book-prod}} template, then it does already have a link to the {{Prod blp}} template also. Look in the "Article PROD notices" section at the top of the navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean the blue one on the right side of the page. Up near the top. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. You said "left", so I didn't look right. :) That's the {{

WP:PRODLIST is a reasonable idea, but if you mean to remove something that it would replace, then I think input from more people would be best. Thoughts anyone? --RL0919 (talk

) 20:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My bad, end-of-day typing is my excuse. However, I still think this space is better used by PRODSUM, because that's likely what people are looking for, and it follows the pattern set by the line above it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the list of PRODs in PRODSUM it seems you can break down PRODs into a couple of major groups: BLP, sports players, albums, books then everything else.

So I'd like to propose an alternate solution: considering that many of these articles are CATed, it would seem that it should be possible to bot all of this. That is, the bot should be able to build a main list, identical to PRODSUM, as well as "sub lists" for BLP, sports, books, etc.

This way you can focus on your own area of interest without having to wade through everything else. Yet you can just as easily see everything in one big list.

Better yet, since each list would have its own page we could put notes at the top that contain a condensed version of special rules for that category. I never knew about books, for instance.

Comments?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, there are no specific instructions on this policy page for administrators who wish to contest the proposed deletion of an article that has already been deleted. The current policy is stated thus: "If the article has already been deleted, please go to Requests for undeletion. It will be undeleted automatically on request, though it may then be nominated at WP:Articles for deletion." While this procedure makes sense for editors who do not have the tools to restore the article themselves, it is an unnecessary step for an administrator to post a request for undeletion that will, according to policy, be undertaken automatically by another administrator, considering that the objecting administrator could undelete the article without mediation. I therefore propose that the following sentence be appended to the aforementioned quotation: "If you are an administrator, you may undelete the article yourself so long as you notify the nominator and the deleting administrator of the undeletion." Neelix (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's even necessary. There's no requirement to notify anyone. I would make the suggestion that a

section at CSD. It would replace the section currently called "Deleting" and could have a short sentence about restoring an article, including the note that an admin can decide on their own to restore a PROD without having to make the request of someone else (which should be common sense anyway). -- Atama頭

19:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That all sounds sensible to me. --Dweller (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Let's do that. Neelix (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, I also added a bit about checking "what links here", that language is on the CSD page, and it also addresses the concern about on this talk page in the 'If you decide to delete the article' thread. -- Atama頭 16:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The template to use after restoring an article deleted by PROD is {{

oldprodfull}} which is for use when it's PRODded, but is more usually used (if at all) when it is dePRODded without being deleted. JohnCD (talk

) 17:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's good to know, thanks. I've restored numerous PRODs and apparently left the wrong template. I didn't know about oldprod. -- Atama頭 18:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the wording of the current policy but interpretation is an issue. I recently raised this with a prolific PROD raiser who raises large numbers of PRODs with just the text "no evidence of notability" and has no intention of changing his practice to say any more than that. Are there any views on either deleting this part of the policy or adding context so that we know what "non-generic" might mean? Thanks Fæ (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a judgement call. If the editor is adding a tag with the same non-specific message on every page, I'd consider that to be pretty much the definition of "generic". I'll admit that the current wording is probably not very good, I'd prefer the term "specific" to "non-generic" (I think "specific" is what was actually meant in the policy, and it's less ambiguous). -- Atama頭 17:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"No evidence of notability" implies to me that the prodder is just judging the article and its sources without even a cursory attempt to source it. So for ones where I disagree about the notability I decline the prods with an edit summary to the effect of "decline prod, seems notable to me". If the prods were sufficiently spaced out and interspersed with ones they had successfully sourced to suggest that the prodder might have had time to check for sources then I might just drop a note on their talkpage suggesting they use a less ambiguous summary such as. "Propose deletion. Doesn't seem notable to me and Google comes up blank". So in short I don't think we need to change policy, just be aware that "No evidence of Notability" will be interpreted by some as I haven't tried to source this but it might not be notable". ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:WPPDP has some awesome advice, and templates, for handling PRODs. -- Atama頭

17:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've got a suggestion for improving this section. As mentioned above, prodders often tend to only say something along the lines of "This doesn't look notable, so it should be deleted." This is not a clear and non-generic reason, but is often enough to get an article deleted despite vocal objection from numerous users (who are often disregarded as presumed meatpuppets). Therefore this policy should be greatly clarified. I think there would be a lot less resentment if all deletion proposals were required to cite a specific notability requirement that is not met, such as "No sources were cited and no external coverage could be found with a cursory search of the internet." This doesn't require the prodder to thoroughly investigate every possible lack of notability, just cite one of potentially several. In addition, to further reduce animosity about articles getting deleted, there should be some explanation as to where the content actually belongs. As an example, assume an article about a small business in a local community is proposed for deletion. By my suggestion, the prodder would say something like "The proper place for this information is a business website. The business owner can get, for example, a Wordpress site and post all kinds of information there." These statements could be organized into a new page of explanations, not rules, aimed at people with the best intentions that don't really want to understand the complicated notability policies and feel like their generosity has been assaulted by Wikipedia moderators. Finally, these explanations should include clear and concise procedures for proving that the article is notable under the specific requirement that has been challenged. I'm not really a Wikipedian so much, but I've seen this fine encyclopedia's reputation hurt across the internet primarily because of unclear deletion policies, and I believe this part of the procedure is most likely to blame. Meustrus (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You are quite wrong that a vague PROD reason is "is often enough to get an article deleted despite vocal objection from numerous users." Any objection from any user is enough to stop a PROD deletion, and even after deletion a PRODded article will be restored on request. I think you are confusing PROD with

WP:BEFORE and accused of not having followed it. Your suggestion of pointing people to other places where their information would be welcome is a good one: there is already WP:Alternative outlets, and I often point authors of non-notable business articles to Wikicompany; perhaps we could get that more organised. JohnCD (talk

) 15:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. The statement, "get an article deleted despite vocal objection from numerous users" doesn't apply to proposed deletion; anyone expressing an opposition to a PROD makes the PROD ineligible (and not only that PROD, but any PRODs in the future on that article). -- Atama頭 15:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but it's possible the objections Meustrus is talking about are on a user talk page or something? Meustrus, would you give an example where this kind of thing has happened? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It would seem I am indeed confused between PROD (thought it just meant 'propose for deletion') and Articles for Deletion. I guess there's some ambiguity there, and now that I've taken a slightly broader look I'm not sure why PROD even exists if an article could just be AfD and if nobody objected within that time period it would be deleted. However, I'd also like to see something like the PROD policy for undeleting articles being adopted for AfD. Now, if what you say about any objection being enough to stop a PROD is true, then Fæ's original complaint shouldn't be an issue because one person saying "I object because I think it is notable and you've given no good reason it isn't" should be enough to prevent deletion. Overall, I guess the one thing that can be gained from my comment is that the rules for deleting articles on Wikipedia are absolutely byzantine and nobody can be expected to understand them very well without significant experience dealing with them. 129.186.252.145 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

PROD exists because AfD can be a pain to initiate, and it's a waste of time and effort if nobody is going to argue to "keep" the article anyway. The red tape involved in properly starting an AfD discussion is necessary to ensure that discussion is fair, and proper notification is given to the community, but again if it appears that nobody has already expressed an objection to deleting the article it can save a person a lot of effort to just slap a PROD tag on the article and move on. You're correct that an AfD that has no objections would be deleted, but your complaint about "byzantine" rules is perfectly valid, and giving editors an easier process to have an article uncontroversially deleted is helpful. I have to admit that there are a number of articles I've wanted to see deleted and put off nominating them because I didn't feel like dealing with AfD at the time.

As to Fæ's original complaint, well, you're right that anyone can make a good-faith objection to deletion which should automatically stop the PROD (and prevent the article from being eligible for future PRODs). But Fæ wanted the policy to be clear on how we encourage people to begin the PROD process. Technically you can put a PROD tag on an article with the flimsiest of reasons and if nobody objects it is eligible for deletion. On the other hand, administrators who delete PRODs are free to use their judgement and delete or reject the PROD as they see fit. An administrator might just reject the tag themselves if they disagree with the reason for the deletion proposal. They might also want to keep the article if they feel that the article has a chance for improvement and to meet our inclusion criteria. I have a number of articles I "adopted" myself after finding them with expired PROD tags and deciding to fix them (see All You for an example of a stub I expanded, it looked like this when it was proposed for deletion). It's a good thing to encourage people to give a valid reason for proposing deletion.

We do somewhat have the undeletion equivalent of PROD; any article that has been deleted via PROD can be restored on request.

Deletion Review (which is the undeletion equivalent of AfD). -- Atama頭

22:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I found it interesting that proposed deletion feature was discontinued at Wikipedia Japan ja:Wikipedia:提案削除. --Bxj (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it was never implemented. It was created as a draft in January 2009, and had a vote from December 2009 to January 2010, and the consensus was to not have proposed deletions. It was formally withdrawn in February 2010. -- Atama頭 06:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are you guys gonna delete my article because of how many hits she gets on Google? She IS notable. She's singlehandly changed the Nights fanbase, which is outstanding work for a single girl in England. I may hate her, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have an article. SailorSonic —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC).

If you're referring to

notabilty, which is necessary for the article to be included. My advice to you is to read and understand our Article Wizard. Step 3 in the tutorial should be of particular help to you. -- Atama頭

19:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the policy regarding the restoration of an article and then made a redirect after said article was deleted due to a proposed deletion? Jfgslo (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Prods may be challenged at any time and by any user. If the challenge occurs after deletion, restoration is automatic, per WP:Proposed deletion#Objecting and WP:Proposed deletion#Undeletion. I guess that restoring makes the history easier to find for recreation or merging. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've serached the archives and can't see that this has been brought up previously, although I'm sure it must have been discussed at some point. If anyone can point me to the right discussion, please feel free to do so, rather than debating this again. If not... well:

I've noticed that, in my experience at least, PROD tags are almost always removed by the page creator, usually without explanation. That's their right, and I'm not complaining, but it did strike me that the page creator will almost invariably object to the deletion of their page - they wouldn't have written it if they didn't want it on Wikipedia. Given that fact, there will almost always be at least one person who will want the PROD tag removed. If they don't remove it themselves, the likelihood (again, IME) is that they are simply unaware of it (not everyone logs in weekly).

According to

If any person (even the author him/herself) objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.

Per the above, it seems that PROD is effectively unworkable - in almost every instance, one person - the page author - will object, even if they don't or can't make this known during the PROD's duration. I know

Given the above, is the PROD process really worth it? It seems a bit sneaky, somehow - if the page author doesn't turn up and remove the tag in time, their article gets deleted, even if if they would object given the chance. I'd welcome some other views on this. Yunshui (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not my experience that tags are almost always removed by the page creator. As part of the drive to reference BLPs I sent about 50 pages through the deletion process. In only about 5 cases was I obliged to take the page to AfD because a PROD had been contested at some point, and only one of those was definitely contested by the creator. Admittedly these were established articles which had been around for some time and the experience of new page patrollers may be different. More pages are actually deleted through PROD than AfD so it is serving its purpose of relieving the load on the AfD process. Hut 8.5 09:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that PROD does its job, and I apologise for not being clearer above. What I'm concerned about is the fact that objections to PROD are not necessarily being voiced. A fictious example might help: new editor

WP:REFUND

(or even know of its existence) so he can't. Made despondent by the deletion of his article, he throws himself into the nearest canal... okay, probably not that last bit.

My point is, you can pretty much guarantee an objection from the page creator, given the chance. If they don't object, is it not more likely that they're unaware of the PROD, rather than that they agree that their work should be deleted? Yunshui (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not my experience that the page creator always removes a PROD on a newly created article, especially if the PROD reason is clear and links to policies he may not have understood - e.g "There is no indication that this meets the

notability standard of WP:Notability (books)". JohnCD (talk

) 20:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

CSD does not allow the creator to remove the CSD. AFD does not allow anyone to remove it. Why does PROD allow the creator to remove? that just forces it to go through AFD? If a third opinion contests the PROD, then that is fine. How would I go about proposing a change for this? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you just did. PROD is deliberately a "soft option". Unlike CSD, it is not for things that must be deleted if the nomination is accurate, and unlike AFD it is not for deletions that are disputed. If I recall correctly similar proposals have come up many times before and been shot down each time.

talk

) 20:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

PROD was created as a mechanism for deleting articles which no one cares about enough to contest. That's why creators may remove them.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I get that it is soft, but there are lots of non-notable (for example) things that dont meet the strict CSD:a7 criteria. If the creator is around they almost always contest the prod, forcing an AFD. Seems like a big loophole. Im not saying if somethign is PRODed it must be deleted, but I think at least ensuring a 3rd set of eyes saw it would be good (the admin, someone else contesting, etc)

Regarding the creator caring enough - lots of creators care enough about CSD too, but we don't allow it there. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

They don't "almost always" contest the PROD, at least not in my experience (about the same number of pages are deleted through PROD and AFD). There's a fundamental difference between CSD and PROD. The criteria for when something can be speedily deleted are specially written to be narrow and objective, and one editor is meant to be able to reliably judge whether the article should be deleted under those criteria. PROD isn't like that as it allows much broader deletion reasons including decisions based on editorial judgement. Hut 8.5 20:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree it shouldn't be just one editor. PROD still required the admin to go do the delete, so they get a second pair of eyes, as well as anyone doing PROD patrol, or other interested editors of the article. As one may surmise, I am making this RFC based on an actual issue - currently someone is making an article for each pink panther short. (124 of them), each a stub. I mark them prod, the contest, I AFD. It seems like Im cluttering the AFD process, but these shorts clearly dont achieve notability individually. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think most of us do the same. Yes, it does make for some AFDs that are a foregone conclusion, but that is considered preferable to the possibility that we might be deleting articles that could be salvaged. If your PROD reasoning was valid it will be equally valid as AFD reasoning.

talk

) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you want to nominate a large number of similar short films at AfD it's probably better to consolidate them all into one nomination. Hut 8.5 20:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

that is, if you are sure they are similar about the notability. If they're a mixed bag in any important respect, they need to be done separately. I usually advise doing just the 2 or 3 clearest one initially to test the waters. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that proposed deletion does not allow us to avoid a deletion discussion, it is only available when there's no point in a discussion. If a single person objects to the deletion and would speak in defense of the article then an AfD is necessary. Only when an article falls under one of the criteria at CSD do we actually circumvent the discussion. And Beeblebrox is correct, a PROD justification, if valid, should make for a fine justification for AfD, because in both cases you're explaining how the article fails to meet our inclusion criteria. -- Atama頭 22:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

...and this is prior to the conclusion of the prod, and with no stated objection to the prod itself. Does that constitute an objection, or is that an inappropriate removal of a tag or subversion of process? MSJapan (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Since any editor can remove a PROD without giving a reason it is neither an inappropriate removal of a tag nor subversion of process. I regard this as a normal, if

talk

) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result isn't at issue either way to me; I was wondering more about what the overall result means because it wasn't what usually happens. MSJapan (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been considering

WP:DEPROD

, particularly the passage which reads

If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{

bad faith

. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism ..."

The situation as I understand it is that an article bearing a {{Proposed deletion/dated}} was completely blanked and replaced by a redirect. To my mind, this isn't a simple case of malicious blanking, because a redirect was consciously created. We have the following possibilities:

• If the redirect points at something completely unrelated, this could be judged to fall within "obvious vandalism", and so the revert may be total.
• If the redirect is to a page which (broadly or narrowly) covers the same topic area, it's a validly contested PROD, and there are three courses of action regarding the resulting redirect:
  • leave as is
  • take it to
    WP:RFD
  • apply
    WP:BRD
    and restore the article. In such a case, such reversion can only de-redirect and de-blank; it cannot restore the PROD.

You don't state which article this situation occurred, so I cannot determine which of the above should be applied. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mention the article because I'm not terribly concerned about it; there was nothing wrong with where the redirect went. I had just never seen anyone contest a prod by redirecting, and it hadn't seemed to have been discussed here at any point previously, so I thought it might be a useful topic to get some input on for any future reference. MSJapan (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)