Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

Objecting - IPs

If an IP simply removes the prod but does not further edit the article in any way, or edit the talk page, or even provide a reason in the edit summary, is it acceptable to restore the prod tag in this case? If not, should it be? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, and No. Take it to AfD, it saves haggling over the PROD, and opens the possibility of a quicker closure via SNOW. Of course, if an IP is removing every prod, that would be impermissible disruptive editing, but that's not the situation you posed. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

See Template:Proposed deletion and WP:CONTESTED: any editor may contest a PROD, whether logged-in or not; and the only compulsory action when you wish to contest a PROD is to remove the {{Proposed deletion/dated}}, all the rest is courtesy. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's not just IPs. I believe at least addressing the concern raised (even simply by refuting the claim made in it) should be made mandatory. The template says that anyone can object to deletion for any reason, not for no reason at all. And if there is no reason given, why should we assume there was one? How do we distinguish a reasonable contesting from vandalism or WP:ILIKEIT? 212.87.13.66 (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC) (Yes, I am an IP. These are human too.)

WP:DEPROD is quite clear: "You are encouraged, but not required, to also" explain, notify, improve, etc (my emphasis). The point of PROD is to save work at AfD by dealing with uncontroversial deletions. If someone goes to the trouble of removing the PROD, that makes deletion controversial. To start legislating for good faith, reason, adequate reason, sufficient improvement etc would lead to complication, discussion, argument - better leave all that to AfD. JohnCD (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Different situation

If someone Proposes an article for deletion and then just short of the 7 days removes the Prod tag themselves, is this ineligible for Proposed deletion again. I saw one where a user did just that and now they are proposing the same article again. GB fan 16:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the first removal counts as a WP:CONTESTED prod, and that the second prod should therefore be removed again, and that the person who added it should be advised to take the article to WP:AFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking to, just never seen a situation where someone Prods an article, removes it and then readds it themselves. Thanks. GB fan 21:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I must strongly disagree. In what other situation do we permit someone to make an edit, permit them to undo themselves, and then prohibit them from restoring the first edit? The point of prohibiting restoration is that this is meant for uncontested deletions; since the person who removed it obviously disagrees with the removal if s/he has retagged it, the problem is solved. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the original user is not prohibited from restoring the prod. That prohibition only applies if someone else contests the prod. Anyway, I don't think this happens enough to make a new rule to cover it. Reyk _YO! 02:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Consider them to have G7'ed their own removal of the PROD, and all is right in the universe. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to make a new rule, we just need to clarify the existing one. It states "If any person (even the author him/herself) objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag - see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed."

The situation described at the start of this thread is covered by the final clause "and may not be re-proposed". End of story. If there may be exceptions, they must be provided for. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see the article that precipitated my question it is Veilig Rijen. GB fan 20:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As GB fan had explained to me on their talk page about the ongoing discussion here, i decided to clear out all the things. Redrose64, as you said that "If any person (even the author himself/herself) removes the Proposed deletion tag then the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed". But need to clarify that is this author the person who proposed the article for deletion or the person who created the article ? The section Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting states that If anyone, including the article creator removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, but this does not address the concern about a user who removes the tag which they had themselves placed on an article and then re-adds it again after any amount of time. I had removed the tag for giving the article another chance, but after around 2 months now had proposed for it to be deleted again. Anyways an AfD for Veilig Rijen is underway. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• The spirit of the rule is clear - anyone can contest a PROD for any reason, and once that happens the article can not be PROD'ed after that. This is because the removal of the tag indicates the person doing it thinks the deletion is not uncontroversial. However, if the person who removes the tag changes their mind, then there is again no one asserting that the deletion is the least bit controversial. As such, said personal can put a new PROD on the article in the spirit on the rule. (Indeed, I have done this a couple times myself.) Wikipedia is not a legal bureaucracy. Editors are always encouraged to follow the spirit of the rules, and discouraged from trying to make a rule cover every obscure perfectly. (Incidentally, the "author" is the person(s) who wrote the article.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've always made the same assumption as ThaddeusB. If someone removes the tag they placed themselves, they're changing their mind about proposing it for deletion. That's not the same thing as contesting deletion. -- Atama頭 17:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Template PRODs

I've proposed the idea of having a PROD-like process for unused templates. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Template PROD D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

AFD Tonga National Tag Team

Can someone please help me. How do I get an admin to finish off the Proposed AFD process, it has been relisted over 7days, No further discussion has been made. I would like closure please for this article, It is a notable article. Because I am new here, I am getting the feeling those with tools and priviledges are "working against me"?? Not saying that is how it is - but the impression Im getting. The article has not generated any discussion for over 14 days after I have responded to the nominee. Thank you for your time Sipooti ☻Ÿ 05:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs)

The article Tonga National Tag Team isn't up for proposed deletion - it's at articles for deletion (AFD). Briefly, there are four ways in which an article may be deleted - WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:BLPPROD and WP:AFD - but AFD is the only one where a discussion is carried out.

For this particular article, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonga National Tag Team but may also be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 5, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sports and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania. Although it was nominated for AFD on 27 June 2012, no consensus was reached in seven days, so on 5 July 2012 it was relisted for a further seven days. That second seven-day period has now expired, and it may get relisted again. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Redrose. Okay, I see. And what happens after the 3rd relist? or is it ongoing? Sippoti☻Ÿ 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs)

Sipooti☻Ÿ 00:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs)

THANK YOU EVERY ONE and KING All sorted - Thanks to everyones patience with my 100questions THANK YOU!!! Sipooti☻Ÿ 00:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs)

Recording the PROD proposal in edit summaries

Prompted by a recent PROD deletion that I closed, User:SamuelTheGhost and I have been discussing the need - as requested already as part of the PROD process - for a clear edit summary when the PROD tag is being added. This is not about the perennial issue of edit summaries not including reasons, just that the edit summary should make clear that the edit is proposing deletion.

While I don't want to make what is a pleasantly simple process more complicated, nor create more work for closing admins, I do think there's an issue if the PROD tag has been added without an edit summary that alerts people with an interest in the article to the proposed deletion (either because the summary is blank or marked as minor). Rather than this causing a PROD to fail, I wonder if the closing admin - if they agree with the deletion - should reset the PROD timer for another seven days, recording that in the edit summary, to allow those watching the page to be aware of the proposed deletion?

Benefits:

• More reason for the editor proposing deletion to note this in the edit summary to avoid a delay in deletion.
• Better chance for interested editors to contest the deletion before it happens.
• No drastic slowdown in the overall scheme of things.
• Reducing requests for recreation from editors unaware an article they were interested in was up for deleted. (While pages can easily be restored if subsequently contested, if lots of inbound links have been altered following deletion, a lot of effort is wasted removing and then recreating them.)

Drawbacks

• Extra work to check the article history (although the admin should ideally check the history anyway in case the article has previous been PRODded and the tag removed).
• Makes the process marginally less simple for an issue affecting a small proportion of PRODs.

What do you think? Whouk (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good as it is not reasonable to drop a prod on an article and require page watchers to check the diff (or the article) to see that deletion is proposed. To keep it simpler, I suggest a procedural change: an admin considering a prod should check whether a clear edit summary was used; if not, the admin should remove the prod with an edit summary that links to a new statement in the policy which states that a prod with an unclear edit summary will be procedurally removed, but that the article can be prodded once more. Johnuniq (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Whouk for raising this. I would welcome either of the suggestions above. Johnuniq's version has the small advantage that if the original PROD was very casually done (as in the case which started this discussion), it might well never be re-prodded. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I request one of you two to action this? There seems to be no objection. I'm reluctant to do it myself as, not being an admin, I'm not sure I'd get the technical details right. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made the change. Please have a look. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

And I've reverted the change. Partly because the text didn't directly reflect what was proposed here, though also because WP:NOT#BURO. If things aren't what they should be, it's easy enough to decline the prod. If you're going to wait 7 more days, you might as well just nominate it for AfD. - jc37 03:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Proposed deletion endorsed

Template:Proposed deletion endorsed has been nominated for merging with Template:Proposed deletion/dated. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Should a reason be required when removing a PROD tag?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm wondering, is there any valid reason to not require the user removing a prod tag on a page to add a reason (in the edit summary, or otherwise)? Not requiring one seems like it's just an easy way for somebody to keep their article on Wikipedia for another week. I'm sure it's been done before, but I'm proposing that we require some sort of reason, even if it's as simple as "I'll work on it tomorrow", to have a PROD tag removed. Anyone else have opinions? Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 01:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - Although WP:PRODs can be removed "for any reason", it says, "You are encouraged, but not required, to" state the reason. If I recall correctly, this is intended to keep this end of the process lightweight and non-onerous. Also, I thought only policies could require things? --Lexein (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Technically, WP:IAR trumps them. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I don't see the point in requiring a reason if any reason will suffice. It would end up being a gotcha situation for those not well versed in prod policy; if an editor knew the policy well enough to provide a generic 'I disagree with the nomination' edit summary, they defeat the prod, but if they don't, the prod can be restored and the article deleted. That seems like a very gamey outcome. Its also shifting the burden to the objector. A prod is saying this is a straight forward deletion case, it should be deleted and we expect no one will think it necessary to discuss the matter. The remover is saying, 'hay, I want to discuss this first'. The default across Wikipedia is always to be have a discussion on a matter if someone requests one, and current prod practice reflects that. Monty845 05:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC) The point of proposed deletions is to delete an article uncontroversially, where nobody in good faith wants the article kept. Because of that, the reason for the PROD tag removal doesn't matter, and therefore we should never require a justification for removal. To be honest, the only reason that people are encouraged to explain the reason for removal is to prevent the article from going to AfD; if you can give a good justification for keeping the article (say you can argue why it's notable) then it's less likely that the article will go to a deletion discussion. -- Atama頭 04:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I would agree with the comments above, no reason to change the current policy. It seems like it would just be an added layer of bureaucracy if we required an reason despite the fact that any reason is acceptable. If an article meets speedy deletion criteria then that's one thing, but if not then there's no reason it shouldn't go through the normal AfD process. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 02:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure I agree with: 'I disagree with the nomination' edit summary, they defeat the prod, but if they don't, the prod can be restored and the article deleted' . This is the text on the project page: If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, and tags removed by banned users may be restored. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. (bolding is mine). Perhaps I've been misreading it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Hi Kudpung, I believe that Monty845 is describing a hypothetical situation that might occur if we change the policy to require a reason for proposed deletion tag removal, not a situation that could happen now under our existing policy. -- Atama頭 15:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC) As has been said, PROD exists for articles that can be uncontroversially deleted; if someone objects, even without a reason, then it is not uncontroversial. There is no harm in allowing them to stay on Wikipedia a little longer to allow a deletion discussion; if they are PRODed, then are are ineligible for CSD so not an immediate problem. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I guess that makes sense now - thanks for elaborating on that. I'll go ahead and close it, seems pretty clear that this best not changing. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 23:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)