Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:PROD)
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Why I think article creators shouldn't be able to take down prods.[edit]

This editor has just gone and created[1] about 100 unreferenced articles. I tried prodding a few, but he or she took them down. How do we know these are notable? How do we know this actually happened?...William 18:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor answered[2] an inquiry I made at his talk page. They wrote- 'I've taken them from List of United Kingdom by-elections (1868–85)'. After I told them that would violate WP:CIRCULAR. Then came this reply= 'That would be true if I was citing the page. I'm not.' But that's his source. May I also add, he put unreferenced tags up on two of the three articles I PRODed. Any suggestions what to do next? A massive AFD?...William 19:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletions, unlike speedy deletions, can be proposed for just about any reason. It is therefor important that they should be taken down for any reason by anyone. The AfD will be lost as these are all actual by-elections and therefor will be seen to be notable, and the references will be found soon enough. JASpencer (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Merely being unreferenced is not a valid reason to delete something. Being unverifiable is a valid reason, but that requires that there are no suitable sources for the information in question, not just that the article doesn't cite any. In this case it's very clear that there are sources available for this information (such as, say, these) so any AfD would have no chance of succeeding. Hut 8.5 21:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
No opinion on the specific case mentioned. On the topic about article creators taking down PRODs on articles they created, I have no problem with it. PROD means to me an "unopposed deletion" and if someone opposes it, then we go to AFD. The mechanism is in place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion it's already too easy to delete an article through PROD. Many articles receive no review other than the nominator and the admin who closes the PROD, and the admin doesn't actually have any formal responsibility to review the proposed deletion. I spent a few months reviewing PRODded articles daily and I contested about 20% of the proposals as invalid. Let's not throw up more road blocks. Pburka (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I was on PROD patrol a few years ago and it was far higher than 20% that I took down - so at least things have improved since then. JASpencer (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
In the specific case, the list article is referenced to F. W. S. Craig's compendium on the subject. The need to repeat the citation in each article is at most a technicality of wiki process which contributes little to actual wp:V. This doesn't strike me as a great reason to hit the delete switch. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Proposed deletions are for articles where nobody (including the article creator) has a good faith objection to deletion. They are meant to be uncontroversial and a way to circumvent our usual deletion processes when a deletion discussion isn't necessary, but an article doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. Think of a PROD as halfway between AfD and CSD. If the article creator was not allowed to object to a PROD, it would go against the original purpose of the deletion method.
That's not to say that anyone can object for any reason whatsoever. There have been instances (I've witnessed them myself) where a disruptive editor removes the proposed deletion tags from a massive number of articles with no explanation and without discretion, simply as a form of vandalism. These editors were shown to be vandalism-only accounts so clearly there was no good faith in the objections. In those cases, the proposed deletion tags were restored and the deletion process was allowed to continue without interruption.
If there is a case where someone creates 100 new articles that you feel don't meet inclusion criteria, there are three options. Propose them for deletion (which cannot stand if the author objects), find speedy deletion criteria that apply to the articles and tag them (which only works if the articles meet those criteria) or nominate them for deletion per AfD. If you have a large number of related articles that have the same problem, you can propose a single AfD discussion which encompasses them all. Yes, it requires work on your part, but you're also undoing the work that another editor has put into creating those articles in the first place, so it's only fair. -- Atama 22:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I know this is an older discussion, but I feel compelled to respond. The WP:PROD policy states in part, "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." The same policy later states, "Even after it has been deleted, a PRODed article can be restored by anybody through an automated request for undeletion." To sum this up, PROD is for when there is no opposition for deletion. If one editor opposes, then generally it should go to deletion review for a discussion. If we did not allow article creators to object to a PROD, then they would likely just request the article be restored later. That seems very clumsy to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Bob Shannon for AFD reverted[edit]

Hello. I suggested Bob Shannon for speedy deletion, and it was reverted by User:GB fan. I then added the AFD tag, and it was reverted again. How would you like me to propose this for deletion? I think we need to have a discussion about this article--he seems non-notable to me, but happy to see what the others think.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You initially added a speedy deletion tag. The closest speedy deletion criterion to what you used is WP:A7. All it takes to decline a WP:A7 is a claim to significance and there is a claim to significance in the article. I declined it and referred you to WP:AFD in my edit summary. You then added a proposed deletion tag. I declined it again as I believe this should be discussed and left an edit summary saying you should follow the directions at WP:AFD. The only deletion process where there is a discussion is at articles for deletion. THe specific place where the directions on how to nominate an article for deletion using the AFD process is at WP:AFDHOWTO. It is a three step process. GB fan 15:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This looks like a lot of work. Can anyone else please do it? Otherwise I won't have time right now, maybe in a week. I am working on several far more important articles. Btw, it shouldn't be so complicated to suggest a discussion for deletion.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If you put your nomination rationale on the article's talk page, I will create the AFD for you. My recommendation will be to keep the article as I believe a highschool coach that has won two national championships and is a USA Today High School Football Coach of the Year is notable. GB fan 16:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
My rationale is that he may not be notable, as he is only a high school coach. (Most high schools aren't even sufficiently notable to have an article.) The page doesn't seem to show that he is notable.03:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you review WP:GNG. Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. Any deletion rationale must address that. Pburka (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Right now there is one book and one video (I thought we didn't use videos as references?) and two suspicious links. I don't see why we can't have a discussion and figure out what the consensus is. Again, he might be notable, but I think we should talk about it. And figure out which football coaches are notable. I thought only college coaches for competitive teams would be.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Btw, I think what would be potentially interesting--and encyclopedic--would be to know which techniques he is using to train his players, or which games they have won, etc. But I'm still not convinced that a high school coach would be notable. Up for discussion.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
We definitely can have a discussion, the proper place to have a discussion about whether this article should be deleted is at WP:AFD, not here. The directions on how to nominate an article are at WP:AFDHOWTO. GB fan 20:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you please do it, as you said earlier, "I will create the AFD for you."?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Please don't quote me out of context, I said, "If you put your nomination rationale on the article's talk page, I will create the AFD for you." You did not put your nomination rationale on the article's talk page, I didn't nominate it. I would expect someone that has been here since 2006, with over 60,000 edits could put together a policy compliant rationale for deletion of a page. A rationale of "he may not be notable, as he is only a high school coach." is not based on any policy. If you want to nominate the article for deletion, it is up to you to figure out how to do it. GB fan 23:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
If you feel that it should be discussed, then it was inappropriate to attempt to delete the page via speedy deletion or PROD, as those processes are for uncontroversial deletions. User:GB fan is right: you need to take it to AfD and make a policy-based argument for deletion. Pburka (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, it's on the talkpage now. My rationale is, "minor high school coach," thus not notable. During the AFD process, there is a discussion, with keep and delete votes. I think this is what we should have. Btw, someone else had already expressed the same concern on the talkpage in 2012. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
And at this point, figure out how to do it. GB fan 23:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Can an administrator please do that for me? This is why I started a discussion here. I simply do not have time to figure it out right now. During the AFD process, there will be a discussion.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You don't need an admin. You just need to be logged in. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I meant somebody who knows how to do the bloody long three-step process. Actually, since I called attention to that page, which looked like an unreferenced half-stub, it has been greatly improved, and I even added an infobox and improved the layout with subsections. I think we should all rejoice that I threatened to get it deleted. See my comment there. But I am still very, very surprised to see that high school football coached (and even players) have their own pages. Is there an official Wikipedia policy about this? Does this mean this can apply to other sports like polo?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Any person can be notable if there is enough reliable sources that discuss them. There was enough before I worked on it. The guideline is WP:BASIC. GB fan 00:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see why you are not thanking me. Interesting to see teenagers who throw around balls can have a page here btw...especially when most high schools are not deemed notable enough to have a page.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:GNG covers most notability criteria. Guidelines more relevant to sport are at WP:NSPORT, within which we find WP:NGRIDIRON (mainly for players) and WP:NCOLLATH (includes coaches). --Redrose64 (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect?[edit]

I've redirected some articles, instead of deleting them as proposed. Is this proper, or am I being too bold? It's currently not an option under Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Deletion, but should be so. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bearian: PRODs are not binding, even if expired. Any editor (admins are editors too) may WP:DEPROD - there is no time limit. Admins are not obliged to delete any expired PRODs if they feel that there is anything worth keeping. If you feel that the title is worth keeping, but that the content exists elsewhere, a redirect is in order. It falls under "If you decide not to delete the article".
You can look at it thus: somebody has PRODded the article (it doesn't matter whether it was more or less than seven days ago), and you see the article, but don't agree with the PROD, so you remove it per WP:DEPROD. Then you consider its content again, spot that it largely or wholly duplicates part of another page, so you carry out an undiscussed (or bold, if you like) merge - this is permitted, see WP:MERGE#Proposing a merger. All this without your admin hat on. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:Redrose64. Any user can DEPROD, and any user can redirect. Technically, DEPRODding the article in order to redirect it might make it ineligible for PROD in the future, but I don't think that's a significant problem. Pburka (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, Redrose64 and Pburka. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Article page-Talk page[edit]

When I made a PROD on Spike (video gaming), I put it on the Talk page rather than the actual article page. This manual doesn't seem too clear on that: should I/someone add "(not the Talk page)" or something along those lines to this article, so people won't make the same mistake again? ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: It already does. At WP:PRODNOM it says "Add the {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} tag to the top of the main article page ..." --Redrose64 (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I completely read over that twice. Well, the second time that probably happened because I only read the lead section. Anyway, I was confused; if no one else ever has trouble with this, it's probably nothing to worry about. ~Maplestrip (chat) 12:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Old AFDs - do they *permanently* make an article ineligible for prod?[edit]

I recently had a prod rejected on the grounds that the article had been an AFD with a keep decision. This is in accordance with current guidelines, so I do not object to that decision. However, the previous AFD occurred in 2007, and the article itself had several issue notices (lack of notability, reliance on primary sources) that were several years old. I did some due diligence and in my opinion believed the subject of the article was not notable. Indeed, in my prod message, I noted the previous AFD and stated why I believed it did not disqualify the article from a proposed deletion.

I am curious whether there has been any discussion on this point. My belief is that there are plenty of articles that were kept according to old policy, and that are under current policy appropriate candidates for prod—or rather, they would be except they were AFD at some point in the distant past.

I consider prod a valuable wikipedia process, as there is a large difference in work between a prod and an AFD, and therefore I think prods are a useful cleanup process for editors with limited time. In my opinion it's insensible to remove an otherwise appropriate prod in deference to a very old AFD discussion that might have occurred under totally different policies. In the article I proposed be deleted, another editor removed the prod but redirected the page. Clearly, we were both in agreement that the page itself did not deserve to be a standalone article.

I don't want to sound like I oppose this policy entirely. Certainly it makes sense, as a guideline, to reject a prod on the basis of a recent AFD, and I appreciate the spirit of the rule. I don't want to seem as if I support frivolous deletions, and I don't believe old discussions become less valid just because they're old. Rather, I trust editors to review an AFD and use their judgment to decide if it's still relevant. Thanks in advance, very interested to hear if this has been discussed before. Geethree (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the logic here is that PROD is only supposed to be a simple, straightforward alternative to AfD for uncontroversial deletions. If something has previously been kept at AfD then its deletion isn't uncontroversial, and it isn't particularly onerous to ask that someone take something to AfD instead of PROD. If we did want to disqualify old AfDs there would be a number of questions, such as how old an AfD would have to be to qualify, and how people determine that an AfD is no longer relevant. This would detract from PROD being a simple and straightforward process. Hut 8.5 17:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
To specifically answer your question in the header, Yes, an old AFD that ends in keep or no consensus makes an article permanently ineligible for Prod. Like Hut 8.5 said, it is obviously controversial if it wasn't deleted at AFD. What you prodded is controversial since the redirect has now been reversed. -- GB fan 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that it is good that an old AFD prevents prods even many years later, and that it shouldn't be changed. While placing a prod tag requires less work than starting an AFD, some things warrant putting in more work. If anyone ever objected to deleting an article, then there are probably reasonable arguments to be made to keep the article, and it is worth having a discussion on whether the article should be kept (even if the current article isn't in a high quality state). Having an AFD also allows for a more final decision, as anyone can just recreate an article deleted by prod or have it automatically restored on request. Also, in this specific case, the article you seem to be talking about is Basilisk (fantasy role play). There have been numerous AFDs for articles on Dungeons & Dragons monsters since the one for that article, and in several cases articles have often been kept despite weak sourcing. Because there is a president of keeping similar articles even with poorer sourcing than that article has, and because the subject of D&D monsters seems to have resulted in a lot of disagreement, I think in this specific case the article would deserve an AFD even if it hadn't already had one. Calathan (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)