Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 2008 February 13. The result of the discussion was Keep.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
10 April 2008 How I fell in love with Wikipedia Nicholson Baker – The Guardian
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Contents

[edit] Possible PROD Candidate?

I've got an interesting deletion debate for you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amlder. The article was nominated on 3 February for lack of notability. No further comment was entered into the debate, and the debate was relisted on 13 February. It's now the 20th, and I intend to close the debate as No Consensus to delete (There having been no debate on the matter). I have no opinion on deletion, but this article would be gone if a PROD had been placed instead of an Afd. So, my question: Could someone place a prod on this article, since there was no actual debate? Or is the article no longer eligible for PROD simply because it has been nominated for AfD - even if the debate never really happened? Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the article. I've done this once or twice before when an article was AfD'd but never PROD'ed, and attracted no comments for the whole time. IMO it's better than relisting. My deletion comments make it clear this was a PROD deletion, so in particular, anyone who wants it undeleted should get it undeleted on request. Mangojuicetalk 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, that seems to be the best course. Maybe we should make a procedural note somewhere at WP:AFD that a 10-day no-discussion debate should be treated as a PROD, in the absence of improvement to the article? Thanks again, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should necessarily be noted. It's a rare thing. I think the right call was made, though. I'm not sure it should be treated exactly as an expired prod...for example, if it's contested. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Obviously this wouldnt hold if it were contested. In any case, as with PROD, I assume the closing admin made an independent check that the deletion is justified. But i think it would generally be better to make some active effort to attract attention. And if you are going to do it as a prod, wouldnt it be better to close as no consensus, add a prod, and let it be deleted, without inventing a new WP procedure without explicit consensus for it. IAR in a given circumstance is one thing; using it to create a new deletion policy is not a good way to do it. DGG (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
But you can't Prod an article that has already been AfD'd as no consensus (or anything else), so I don't understand DGG's comment. On the other hand, the deletion has been discussed, by one person, and WP:SILENCE could apply. The closing admin simply needs to consider whether the lack of discussion indicates a lack of consensus or a lack of interest and whether the argument in the nomination is compelling. Even if a dozen editors came out against deletion, if the arguments of the nominator were policy based and the arguments against were non-existent or didn't answer the charge, the admin could, in some instances, find consensus was for deletion. It's not a vote, so I don't see what the problem is. Mangojuice's deletion seems to be completely consistent with consensus (without looking at the nomination, so I'm speaking in principle, not based on the specific facts of this case).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen admins take four paths in these circumstances. 1) relist the AFD 2) opine themselves and let the next admin deal with it 3) close the AFD as delete with explicit instructions to overturn as if it had been deleted via PROD 4) just close the AFD as delete. GRBerry 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Prods by IPs

I dunno. I’ve had several instances where no editor has contested a prod (on a nonnotable fictional element et al) and then a random IP removes the tag. These anonymous editors will never respond to an AfD, if it has to get dragged on ‘cause of the contested prod, and often don’t leave any rationale, so what are your thoughts on what to do if IPs remove prods? David Fuchs (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't see why it should be any different, though I do check IP removals carefully to make sure they're not vandalism. "Anyone" means just that, and I don't think that there should be a difference between someone logged in and someone not logged in. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Personally I think only established users (i.e., users other than newly-registered ones and anonymous IPs) should be allowed to remove PRODs, since they are the ones who have some knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. PRODs were thought as an instrument to avoid wasting time with AfD when an article is clearly non-notable but is not a speedy deletion candidate, however I'm clearly noting there's a wide tendency to dispute PRODs even in evidence of absolute lack of notability, and this makes PROD just a useless instrument and an additional waste of time. --Angelo (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • There have been times when established users have failed to see the notability of a subject that an IP editor has. And again, they can always just make an account and remove the prod, and then we're in the same space. I think there are a lot of time-wasting prod removals, but to keep PROD a fair system (one where deletions of any material can be made without discussion), we have to be able to let anyone remove the prod. Doing otherwise disenfranchises new users. And as a side note, lately I've been able to get rid of some blatantly non-notable stuff using G3 criteria, which now includes blatant hoaxes and misinformation. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In addition to the arguments that UsaSatsui brought up, here are two more. 1) An IP could be an editor with an account that just forgot to log in (or didn't bother). 2) We got consensus (before my time) for this system on the basis that anyone could remove the tag for any reason or no reason at all. Changing that rule would not be keeping in the spirit of the original decision, and would be effectively creating a new policy. I don't think we have a chance at that. Angelo - if you think PRODing is wasting your time, nothing requires you to do it. David - If an IP removes the PROD, look again. Assume good faith. They may have seen, or know, something you don't. So search. If that still fails to find a reason for keeping or merging the article, then make an AFD nomination. GRBerry 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am deeply involved in football-related articles, and I've recently seen a terrific increase in disputed PROD about articles who definitely do not fit the corresponding notability guidelines. And many of these PROD requests were cancelled by IP users, only to open AFDs which then end in an anonymous consensus for deleting the article. This is just my experience. In addition, I think there should always be a reason for disputing a PROD request, and my only concern is PROD might become actually yet another bureucratic step toward AFD, under the potential case everyone disputes each single PROD request. --Angelo (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a different issue , and I agree with it for the most part. I wouldn't mind a change saying that a "reasonless" prod removal can be restored (once, anyways). But it doesn't have much to do with IP removals except that oftentimes, IPs don't give a reason. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Same discussion in my talk page. An anonymous IP made a single edit to remove a prod tag. I reverted as vandalism and another user disagrees with that. I consider single edits from anonymous IPs with no edit summaries as vandalism. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone forgot to log in can relogin and remove again the prod and then we can have an Afd. If the anonymous IP removed prod and gives a reason (whatever) in talk page or in edit summary I am ok but: anonymous IP with 1 edit and no reason given this is not a proper removal. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
An edit constitutes vandalism only if it is made in "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (Wikipedia:Vandalism). While the IP's edit may have been vandalism, there is not enough evidence to conclude that it actually was. While I would support requiring a reason (by all users, not just IPs) for removal of a prod tag, it's not mandatory under the current guidelines. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I copy from the instructions of how to contest a prod: "Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion." (emphasize of "why" is done by the instructions). So, it's mandatory somehow. At least for single edit anonymous accounts why should we assume good faith? Do you have an example for some edit that the anonymous IP was asked to explain why and replied? If we have a registered account we at least can understand from other edits if the edit was pure vandalism or something else. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's recommended, but "should" is not necessarily mandatory. However, I think we should assume good faith even for single edit anonymous accounts; the person who removed the prod tag is probably just a reader. Since, as you note, there is no context in which to judge the edit, I don't think we should assume bad faith. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the "do not put it back" trumps the "should explain why" myself. The philosophy of prod is that everyone, including the creator and random strangers on the internet, agrees the article should be deleted, so there's no need to discuss it. That's compromised if we start having to make assumptions based upon who removes it or what else they've done. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What about in cases like Special:Contributions/68.81.95.231. This IP literally just runs through every last anime/manga PROD listed and deprods them all, usually saying "don't be sneaky, do a proper AfD" or the like. Its blatantly obvious he is being pointy and his prod removals are just disruptive. Should they still be kept and editors forced to instead fill AfD with his "failed" prods? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That's evidence of vandalism and/or bad faith. If I were checking it in that case, I wouldn't complain about it being put back. Remember, lacking evidence to the contrary, we assume good faith. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing a proposed deletion template without explanation is not vandalism. If an editor does this, the obvious explanation is that he disagrees with the deletion, even if he doesn't explain why. I see no evidence of vandalism in the contributions of User:68.81.95.231 either. (He has many constructive contributions and deprodded exactly four (4) articles.) Spacepotato (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
...okay, a bad example, but my point stands. If the IP has done -nothing- but deprod about 6 or 7 articles, I would call that vandalism. And if anyone (IP or not) removed a prod with a statement that implies they're doing it in a bad faith way (such as "Don't be sneaky"), I would call it bad faith. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In my view, given the information provided, there's no reason to think that either of these examples are vandalism. The simplest explanation in both these cases is still that the editor genuinely disagrees with the deletion. I would not call "Don't be sneaky" evidence of bad faith, although it's mildly incivil (I've seen much worse) and may indicate that the user is confused about the proposed deletion process. Spacepotato (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion

So how does this thing work? If the author of an article that was prodded by someone else, but deleted by me, contacts me for undeletion, should I undelete the article or place it on deletion review? JIP | Talk 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would undelete unless you think it was speedy-able. If you think that it was non-speedy-able but that it should have been deleted (as you presumably would, since you deleted it), I would restore and nominate for deletion. The spirit of PROD is such that it should be used only in uncontroversial cases, and generally if somebody asks for undeletion the case isn't uncontroversial. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subst insistence

There are any number of bots out there that are programmed to subst appropriate templates. I don't know why the prod template should insist on the editor manually substing, rather that allowing the simpler implementation (without subst) and having a bot follow up to reduce the number of key-strokes. We've all got plenty to do to enhance this Project and the reason we have shortcuts (like, say a template!) is to automate tasks as much as possible. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • That's be nice, but what I want is a bot that auotmaticly desubsts {{prod2}} templates. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Oldprodfull

Hello fellow editors ... I have been using {{Oldprodfull}} to flag articles that have been proposed for deletion, and either seconded or contested ... this was based on {{Oldafdfull}}, but all of the parameters are optional.

I would like to add mention of it to the instructions for adding a {{Prod-2}} and for contesting a PROD ... this helps to (a) enforce that PROD may only be applied once, and (b) indicate that Some Other Editor agrees with the PROD.

I would like suggestions for wording and placement, so I have started this thread. :-)

Happy Editing! — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a LOT of information to include in a template, though I agree that it is worthwhile to have it all in one place. Could this template include a show/hide tag, simialr to the Article milestones template? That way, it highlights that the article was subject to (and is no longer eligible for) a PROD, and that interested parties can click to learn more. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PRODSUM failure

WP:PRODSUM seems broken--it appears that this has not been refreshed since the 19th. I don't have the knowledge to figure out what is wrong . DGG (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:DumbBOT. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
A change on MW:API took effect on Wikipedia. I am signed up to the API mailing list, and I vaguely remember that change being announced, but I apparently didn't realize the change affected the prod summary. Anyway, everything should be fine now. Tizio 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rex Club

An article I prodded was recently deleted. However, the talk page remains. Is it standard procedure to leave the discussion pages, or was this an oversight? Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained prod removals

I'm beginning to get quite tired of having to take clearly non-notable subjects to AfD because someone removes a prod without explanation. I noticed above that someone else noted that they wouldn't be adverse to reversing a prod removal if it's done without explanation - what are others' thoughts on a potential change of policy? пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been previously discussed several times with no agreement. In my opinion, adding that restriction won't solve your concern. The person will simply remove the prod again only this time with an explanation. If it's clearly a non-notable subject in your opinion, then the odds are you aren't going to agree with the explanation & choose to send it AFD anyway. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't remember if it was said above or not, but allowing prods to be re-added undermines the whole idea of PROD...that the deletion is completely uncontroversial. The template itself says to remove it if you disagree. And besides, any article deleted with PROD can be undeleted simply by asking, so why spend so much time reverting and re-reverting the thing when it's not permanent anyways? At least an AFD sticks. For the record, I find a lot of clearly non-notable articles qualify for speedy deletion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reverting a PROD removal is a violation of policy:
    • If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.
    • Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. If an editor still feels the page ought to be deleted, a deletion discussion should be used, as indicated below.
From Wikipedia:DEL#Proposed_deletion. Notice that there is no mention of giving a reason.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The policy page should probably be fixed. No editor should remove a prod without addressing the concerns that lead to it. This seems like common sense. Friday (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment you express, but I don't want to bring PROD into the territory of having to judge what constitutes an acceptable rationale. PROD is for uncontroversial cases. Removal of PROD indicates controversy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I will sometimes remove a prod when I know from experience that other people are likely to contest the deletion, even though I would approve of it. the articles that need discussion ought to be discussed, regardless of my opinion on the actual article. The sensible uses of Prod are:
  1. when there's an older article that clearly should be deleted but doesnt fit speedy, and you are reasonably sure nobody really cares about it any longer.
  2. when there's a recent article that clearly should be deleted and you think there's a reasonable chance that the author will agree to abandon it or not look back to check.
  3. when there's an article that might be kept if someone other than you were able to make improvements, and someone is likely to notice and make them but might not if you just put a regular tag on it.

The most common unfair use is when there's an article you think ought to be deleted, but you know people might disagree, and hope that they won't notice. There's litle point in forcing a response when the response is likely to be: no, its notable enough, thank you. DGG (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I see a fair amount of these. I've had more than one discussion with someone who was using PROD as a way to slip a delete in without discussion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the "would someone object?" criterion breaks down when you look at the kinds of unreasonable objections we actually get. All kinds of people either disagree with, or don't understand, the purpose of Wikipedia. These people will object to the deletion of stuff we obviously can't use. You might instead ask "Would a reasonable editor object?" - but this is basically another way of asking "Does this content belong?". Prod is essentially just a general-purpose speedy, sugarcoated with this mostly-fictional notion of being "uncontroversial" so that the anti-admin-discretion crowd will swallow it. Friday (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion is not speedy, nor does it rely on administrator discretion. Rather, it relies on deletions being uncontroversial. What you are calling fictional sugarcoating is the mechanism which makes proposed deletion work. Spacepotato (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It better rely on admin discretion. If we have admins running around deleting prods with no consideration of whether the content belongs, we need to get them to stop. I can't imagine an admin would be so foolish- or not for very long, anyway. I wasn't trying to describe how the prod policy explains it- I was trying to describe how prod functions in actual practice. Friday (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be foolish to rely on administrator discretion, as administrators are as capable of making a mistake as anyone else. Spacepotato (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It certainly relies on admin digression. The admin is supposed to review the prod and the reason for it before deleting it. I know some admins do this regularly...and some who I suspect don't.--UsaSatsui (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Admins may or may not use good judgment when reviewing proposed deletions, but the process doesn't rely on this. Rather, it relies on user proposed deletion patrollers like you and me. That's why there's a five-day waiting period. Spacepotato (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
In particular, an important use for PROD is in fact as a modified speedy for things which rally do need to be seen by more than 2 people: works of fiction, books in general, fictional characters, toys and games, albums, songs, computer programs as distinct from web content, possible hoaxes not amounting to utter nonsense. Many things proposed here are in fact removed because someone recognises them as notable.
Where admin discretion comes into play is judging at the end of the 5 days. Some admins seems to be almost automatically deleting everything that's an expired prod--I do not think that's correct. I always check for myself just as I check a speedy tag. I want to be sure someone has taken a second careful look. (or perhaps a first careful look) DGG (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All India Trade Union Centre

Dear Administrators, This article on All India Trade Union Centre was created by mistake when I was trying to move the former UTUC-LS article to All India United Trade Union Centre. Sorry for the mistake. Please delete it.--NoMagicHarry (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification please

An anon IP has been removing PRODs from several articles that had previously been subject to speedy deletion, commenting (erroneously, I believe) that the previous speedys meant the article had "previously been proposed for deletion," meaning that PROD could never be used on that article. When I attempted to clarify this policy page to say that a "previously been proposed for deletion" refered to PROD and not speedy, my clarification of the policy page was reverted by the same anon IP. Who is right? UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PROD is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions. It's not against the rules to try it on an article that has been speedy-deleted in the past and later recreated... but if an article is recreated it's a fair bet that it might be recreated again even if deleted via PROD. So in such cases I would recommend an AfD. As for whether the anon's de-prod, though, any reason at all is good enough, and you should not revert de-prods. Mangojuicetalk 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Should have clarified: these are not recreated articles; they are articles that survived speedy for some, often technical, reason (often with the advice to "take it to PROD"). Understood that any de-prod reason is good enough, and I have not reverted any de-prods, but just wanted to clarify this policy page - would that be OK?. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that if an article doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria, this does not mean it should not be deleted via PROD. If the only objection to deletion was a process-based one like declining speedy deletion, that should not be taken to mean that someone really doesn't want the article deleted. Mangojuicetalk 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, I'll make the changes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It is stated quite clearly on the page that "a rejected speedy candidate is still eligible for PROD", so the anon is in the wrong here. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear up any misunderstanding:

  • The IPs in question [1] [2] removed only two PRODs, not "several" - and only the first had been previously speedy'd, the second had previously been PROD'd [3] [4]
  • The initial attempt to clarify the policy was reverted with the comment "conflicts with WP:PROD#Procedure for administrators step 2" [5] which obviously was correct and which obviously was taken into account when the policy was clarified the second time [6]

Thanks. 58.8.15.18 (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reword to require a reason for deprodding?

Should this page be reworded to require a valid reason, at least in the edit summary, as to why the PROD is being removed? Removals for personal vendettas or for vandalism should allow the original prodder, or anybody else for that matter, to re-add the prod tag, instead of forcing everybody to AfD. Corvus cornixtalk 18:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Removals for personal vendettas or vandalism do allow the prod tag to be restored. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. seems to contradict that. Corvus cornixtalk 21:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • "except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article).". Vandals and stalkers can be assumed to not be objecting to deletion. I think the idea is that, unless there is clear and unambiguous evidence it is bad faith, assume it's not. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The practical reason to prevent deletion if the prod is removed, ifs that if there is controversy to such an extent, regardless of the motive, it is better to obain a more definitive result via Afd. This is especially true if there is some suspicion of improper motives; the way to deal with it is to have the matter discussed and settled.DGG (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Because of WP:AGF, we cannot require that a reason for contesting a PROD be given, anymore than we can require that a user be registered to de-PROD (i.e., do not allow anon-IP users to de-PROD) ... just encourage users to leave {{deprod}} and {{Oldprodfull}} messages/tags, and hope for the best ... OTOH,

      Anonymous edits without comment may be reverted by anyone.

      Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 05:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide the source of this quote? I can find it neither via Google nor Wikipedia search. If it was meant to apply to articles, it's I think the opposite of actual policy. . DGG (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I cannot provide a WP:RS citation for that quote ... it's something that was imprinted on me during my first weeks as an editor ... it may not be WP:Policy, but I don't think it's that far from WP:Consensus, i.e., some editors seem to do Recent changes patrol looking specifically for uncommented edits by anons (and please don't ask me to point my finger at an example!) which they then revert without comment except for the occasional "rvv" ... I find that behavior rather hypocritical, myself. —151.200.237.53 (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you're just biased. Can't put my finger on why, though.  :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy tags

Hello, fellow editors ... I have added the phrase,

As a courtesy to other editors, consider ...

to the 5th Step of the section Contesting a proposed deletion ... yes, it is optional, but I felt that Some Other Editors could use the gentle reminder of why they should do it. :-)

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While your intent was good, it was redundant to the existing statement, so I removed it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)