Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lar (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 4 February 2006 (→‎Proposed Deletion Has Begun: found it, thanks Interiot!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Answers to expected objections

Won't this make it too easy to delete anything?

No, because if a single person disagrees with the deletion, the article won't get deleted.

Won't this make it too hard to delete anything?

Simple analysis of AFD shows that 80% of nominations are not controversial, and are either clear-cut deletes or clear-cut keeps. This page simply does the same with less overhead. It's possible that someone will go veto-ing every nomination, but that's hardly a constructive approach.

So how do we deal with controversial deletes, or socks?

Good question. For the present, I'd suggest to throw those on WP:AFD after this process fails to handle them. I'd be happy to hear other suggestions. Controversial deletes are, by definition, controversial, so a good process to handle them is going to be tricky.

Isn't this redundant or m:instruction creep?

It's not instruction creep because it's significantly simpler than just about anything else I've seen proposed. It's a bit redundant, but there are substantial objections to AFD as it is now, so offering a simple alternative would be a good thing.

Isn't it out of process to use PROD to delete things?

See, that would be instruction creep. Wikipedia isn't about process. This page deletes articles if nobody objects to the deletion. As such, it will not delete worthwhile articles. If you see an article listed here, judge it on its merits, not on whether the process is valid.

Isn't this new process being implemented too fast?

No. It's been discussed to death several times for at least half a year. There are at least three older proposals that in essence are the same as this one, only somewhat more complex. We can discuss for another half year, or we can go for a test run for a chance.

Discussion

  • I think this is a possibly good idea. I would favor this proposal, and I would be willing to watch the log files. However I think there needs to be some showing of consensus behind this procedure before it goes live. if there is none I will undelete any page deleted via this process as an out-of-process deletion, and brign the matter to WP:DRV as an unsantioned speedy delete. DES (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good; it should decrease the load on AFD, at the least. (It'll probably also decrease the signal-to-noise ratio there, since a greater portion of AFD noms will be controversial bloodbaths). —Kirill Lokshin 17:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should a person who objects to the reason for deletion specified, but feels that no change to the article is needed (for example a dispute over notability) be encouraged to register that objection on the log page in addition to (or instead of) simply removing the template? Should the template provide a link to the log page for that purpose? should it perhaps provide a link in any case so that someone adding the template can then just follow the link to log the reason for the proposed deletion? I know you want to keep this bare-bones simple, do you think this adds too much complexity? I don't think so. Alternatively, an objection could be noted on the article's talk page. DES (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (should they register objection on the log page) Yes, I'd say that's useful. Also, noting anything on the article's talk page is good. (should the template link to the log) Would be nice; this requires a bot to modify the template at midnight, but that shouldn't be a problem. Radiant_>|< 17:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this idea and, as long as there's any spark of contestement, the article goes to AfD, this should streamline things nicely. I support a live trial of this. Reducing AfD volume would give people more time to think about the harder cases. Strong support of this idea, I'm willing to help by tagging some new articles this way, (not an admin so can't delete anything...) and by working to improve some that might be on the list that I think are savable or mergable, and... major kudos to those that have been working on this idea! ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a nice idea since it would hopefully reduce the clutter over at AfD. I think having a log system of some sort would be smart in order to check for articles were people remove tags maliciously/without reason. I'd support a trial run of this proposal. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I liked the idea at first, but then worries began to creep in. In many cases, I think, the fate of an article would depend wholly upon the self-appointed people who scan the logs (I'd probably be one of them, but the same applies to me). Many editors edit irregularly and less frequently than every five days, and they're often the editors who are interested in less well-known subjects. Now, that can affect AfDs, of course — so that the effect of this proposal will boil down to this: the AfD system defaults to "keep", this system defaults to "delete". As an inclusionist with regard to articles on people and a mergist/deletionist with regard to many other types of article, I'd be worried about the shift of emphasis. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It really defaults to "keep" in a way: anyone, for no reason at all, is allowed to remove the {{prod}} and keep it off forever. If they like, some prod-scanners can err on the side of removing the tag if they're in doubt. But if numerous people come by and all of them think there's no reason to save an article, I think it should be pretty clear it should be deleted. --Interiot 22:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, but we already have people scanning the deletion logs to restore and improve speedies with potential. I don't think a lack of watchers is going to be problematic; this proposal has been up for scant hours and we've already got five. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like one of the selling points is that it'd remove the clutter from the AfD log. Isn't there a better way of removing clutter, say having two categories, "obvious deletion" and "deletion", but both having the same process? The best way of verifying that someone is watching is by having them voting. Andjam 00:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, AFD is not a vote. And second, if something is "obvious deletion" then no debate is needed, we can just delete it. On AFD, one "watcher" is not enough to save an article. On PROD, it is. And we have several watchers already (on mainpage), not including the tagger and the bagger. Radiant_>|< 01:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a great proposal. I personally have some articles in my watchlist that I have meaning to put in process for deletion. I haven't yet because AfD is such an ordeal and was waiting to gather a few more so I only have to keep track of the AfD disscussions for seven days instead of spreading it out. I will now wait for Feb 4th! --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You probably know I've been a fan of simplifying deletion. Thank you for taking the initiative and coming up with a proposal that it looks like people will support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like a very good idea. Something has to be done to save AfD and reduce the mindshare obvious deletions take up. Thinking long-term, this is really only a first step towards dealing with an ever-increasing influx of junk pseudocontent. For instance, articles that consist only of a single external link ought to be zapped by bots, because even the speedy deletion process still requires the attention of multiple human users. I would like to spend more time creating needed content, but my sense that all hands are required to bail out the ocean of crap washing over the gunwales keeps me on newpages patrol a lot.Ben Kidwell 04:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate this project, though FWIW I choose to stick with {{db-copyvio}}, {{db-nonsense}}, {{db-empty}}, {{notability}}, {{merge}} and, for obvious spamvanity, send it immediately to AfD. Regards, --Perfecto Canada 17:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the log page

  • I expect that some experienced SEO people might wise up, and will make it a habit to check back 6 hours later to remove the template (and will do so without giving any explanation why their article might not fit the deletion criteria). But this proposal would still greatly lessen the burden on AfD.           Regarding Step #2 (appending the reason and article to the relevant deletion log page), it would be even easier if that could be automated somehow. I could (and probably will) write a toolserver page to track new additions to Category:Proposed deletion, that extracts the reason from the original page. But the toolserver isn't always up, and one of the monobook.js people could probably write an on-wiki version too (though a js on-wiki version wouldn't automatically remove items from the list). --Interiot 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. I think we should certainly try this, not least because it isn't too contentious. I still wonder that it does not save a lot of time. You still have to tag, list, and give reason - only one less action than AfD - and if the thing becomes contested then you still have to go through AfD all over again. I much prefered my simpler proposal at Wikipedia:Deletion reform/Proposals/Uncontested deletions. However, if we all wait on consensus for our favoured scheme, we'll do nothing. Try this, if it roughly works, I'd like us to revisit my proposal. --Doc ask? 18:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Interiot and Doc, I also think steps 2 and 3, implementing a centralized logging page, are misguided - their afd equivalent, steps II/III at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion, breaks very very frequently (I clean up about fifteen per day with Crypticbot, out of about 200 total nominations). Why have this central log page at all? We keep the centralized AFD pages to deal with people who remove the tag, but that's enough to end a proposed deletion in itself. Articles using this process should be tagged with their reason in the edit summary or as an argument to the template (or both). Then the article's talk page can be used to discuss the reason if someone removes it, or if someone's leaning toward removing it.

    The purely mechanical task of finding which articles are ready for deletion can be solved by sorting either Category:Proposed deletion or a secondary Category:Proposed deletion by time by, er, time. This can be done using a sort key of {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}}-{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTH}}-{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>Twodigit {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}; this makes it so that the template has to be substed, but I think that's a far lesser evil than having pages being tagged but unlisted for weeks or months as used to happen with afd.

    (I also think this would work well for afd as a whole—most things that happen to an article get discussed on the talk page... but if deletion is to be on the table, it has to go to a different page in the Wikipedia namespace, which is maintained through a very clunky, instruction-creep-riddled process, and where nothing except whether to delete is officially on the table; it forces people to look at the article at least once before tacking on a "delete per nom"; and if the article's changed after someone comments on deletion on the talk page, it'll show up on their watchlist—but that's another matter entirely.) —Cryptic (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • That is a good point. I have no objection to simply having a daily category instead (which after all is self-updating). Another advantage is that this forces all discussion regarding the article to the article's talk page, as there isn't any other place. More judging the articles on their merit. Radiant_>|< 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The suggestion is to have the category sort key be the date, rather than a separate category for each day. And I strongly support this suggestion as well. --Interiot 19:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though if the sort key is "2006-01-27" (see User:Interiot/Sandbox/deleteme1), then in the category view, it shows up under the heading "2", which is much less optimal than I'd hoped for. However, it does make toolserver tools significantly easier to write (because the sort key is easily queried), and the toolserver view would of course display the full sort key. --Interiot 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then shall I propose Wikipedia:Proposed deletion/Log for deletion? :) — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sort key should probably be per day of the month; pages aren't going to be in this category for a month, let alone a year. Radiant_>|< 19:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • (via two edit conflicts) At best, that'll leave them displayed under "0" for the first ten days of the month, then "1" for 10-19, "2" for 20-29, and "3" for 30 and 31. It'll also break slightly when the month changes; articles listed as "01" and "02" will be sorted as if they were older than those listed on "29" and "30".

            The reason I had the full date and time in my proposal above was so that people could always find the newest articles added to the category by going directly to the end. If we don't mind sacrificing that, we could use categories like [[Category:Articles proposed for deletion on {{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}]] (with the appropriate includeonly/subst magic so that it gets substed when the main template does); this lets us sort by day for the deleting admins on the back end, while maintaining an alphabetic sort order with proper headers for the folks watching the category for articles to rescue. I still think a double-category solution (one sorting by PAGENAME, the other by date and time) is best, though, in which case the header name doesn't matter. —Cryptic (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            • Showing "0" for the first ten days, "1" for the next ten, etc. still is very suboptimal, and makes it a pain to search for the cut-off point where admins can start deleting pages. The only way is to guess at a point, go into the article, edit the article and find the date at the bottom. Like I said, toolserver tools can display the entire sort key easily, but finding a way to do it on-wiki would be much better. Unless there's another way, I currently support having a separate category for each day (either 31 rotating categories, or a scheme where one category is created every day, and one old category is deleted). --Interiot 19:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • They're still sorted by the full key, even if the headers only show the first character. The very first article displayed in the category would always be the oldest. I have no objection to separate categories by day, though, so long as there's a way to see the articles sorted by time somewhere (whether it's the sort key, as in my proposal, or through a toolserver script). —Cryptic (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Another option might be {{CURRENTWEEK}}. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Weeks aren't good, separating out by days is much better. How about having 31 separate categories, eg. Category:Proposed deletion by day 30, and have the template place them in the right one with {{CURRENTDAY}}, and then reusing them in a circular fashion? As Radiant says, articles shouldn't remain in the category for an entire month. --Interiot 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • (via two edit conflicts) CURRENTWEEK would force us to have a widely-varying lagtime on deletion, at least a week and as many as two. Condider two articles: Article A is tagged on Saturday, January 14; CURRENTWEEK is then 2. Article B is tagged on Sunday, January 15; CURRENTWEEK is then 3. But we can't delete either until Sunday, January 22, when CURRENTWEEK is incremented again to 4. —Cryptic (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DOH, forgot that sort keys were ASCII, not numerical. Maybe we should get a dev to implement {CURRENTDAY_LETTER} to return A-Z depending on the day of the month :) I think rotating cats would work, as Interiot suggests, it's also easily understood by n00bs. Radiant_>|< 20:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, {CURRENTDAY_LETTER} wouldn't work because there's only 26, but adding numbers would work (making 36 possibilities). This could be implemented the same way Cryptic's suggestion about Template:Twodigit 3 works. But that would be n00b-unfriendly, as you say. --Interiot 20:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So long as we're wishing for stuff that needs developer assistance anyway, a way to make category headers display an arbitrary number of characters (__CATHEADER_4__?) would solve this problem better, and have plenty of other uses besides. —Cryptic (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Agree with that, and I'd think it would be easy to implement? For now, I wrote a quick prototype of a category sortkey lister on the toolserver. Once the data is in the script, it's trivial to sort it by anything, print out a substring of the sortkey, etc. --Interiot 20:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the log page is highly desireable. it allows watching articels added to and removed from the lsit, soemthing not esaily doen with a category alone. Infact i will go so far as to say that I oppose the existance of this system without the log page, and will not participate in watchign the category in its absence, unless soemone can convince me that I am mistaken here. Remeber that we must cater to admins who do NOT ahve toolserver accounts. i want to be able to but a single ling on a personal tools page, adn follow that to a page where all relevant proposed deeltions are listed, sorted by day. I really don't think the few who fail to log will be that large a problem, and properly doen a bot can add the log entries on behalf of those who don't make them properly. DES (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still strongly opposed to this entire proposeal in the absence of a log page. i think it will be far more opaqe for typical users. the tool is a fine alternate means of findign the pages, buit ithould not substitute for the log page. DES (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but why not have a log page on the toolserver? Or one that is bot-generated? Both give less potential for mistakes, which Cryptic explains are common. You said above that you'd prefer nominating to take less time, and your preferred proposal doesn't have a manual log either. Radiant_>|< 23:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what you mean by "my preferred proposal" I don't recall supporting any version of this that did not include an on-wiki log page. If an automated process can reliably create an entry on such a page, fine. Failing that, if the template can be so designed to make this as quick and painless as possible, fine. Consider {{copyvio}} for example, that includes text right in the tempalte to be cut and pasted ontot eh log page, plus a link to the proper page. Soemthing of that sort ought, IMO, to result in far fewer errors than the current AfD process, adn to take significantly less time. If a user script could be developed to speedy up the process, also fine. But I really think that there should be a compelte on-wiki log of all nominations made via thsi process. For one thing it would allow after-the-fact analysis of how many noms resulted in direct deltion, how many in an AfD, and how many in a keep, wth or without an edit fixup. It isn't manual log cretion i care about -- it is the existance of the on-wiki log page. DES (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, confusing DOC with DES here. Darn TLAs. Anyway. I think that copyvio is a more specialized process than AFD, and I am not convinced (for the lack of any statistics) that less mistakes are made with it. I think the best way to go would be to have the automated log page Interiot suggested, for the sake of userfriendliness. The toolserver can also make backups and create statistics of that, if desired. If we want logs on-wiki, it would be an easy job to get a bot to make a daily or weekly log dump. Radiant_>|< 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's ok. I said that the copyvio template is set up to make things easier, and that we might use similar methods. I can't say what the error rate is with that, but there are fewer steps and they are IMO easier for the user to follow. If the automated log page could do a dump on ther order of hourly, that might be reasonable, but i think a reasoanbly up-to-date on-wiki log is essential. I honestly think that the diffuculty of simply addign a single entry to a specifed page are beign exagerated -- AfD requires creating a new page, puttign an entry on it in a specified format, and then transcludign it via a link found on yet another page -- i think we could make things far easier than that and in all probability drastically reduce the incidince of missed noms. Let the bot scan for and add any missing entries. But if you still think that is too much burden for the nomiantors, or too much risk of errors, then a bot-generated log is fine ifg it can be up-to-date on-wiki, say on the order of a hour's delay. DES (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, automated logs can be generated from the toolserver, independent of whatever human tracking process is used, and these would be especially useful for the Feb 4 trial run, so I'll try to get these going. --Interiot 18:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"unless a single person objects"

This phrase kills the proposal. I am a "mergist", so I personally object to almost any article deletion, since any title could just be merged/redirected. I'm sure the true inclusionists will just trash this. -- Netoholic @ 20:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we started seeing twenty or thirty afd nominations a day all reading "This was tagged {{prod}}, but User:Foo removed it without comment", where Foo doesn't later object on the afd, I imagine that we'd find other methods to deal with him. No way to tell how often it'll happen without trying it for real. Most of the true inclusionists have been driven away from don't comment on afds for the truly horrid articles. —Cryptic (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netholic, I encourage you to monitor all proposed deletions and, if you think they should be merged or redirected instead, do so immediately yourself. I think that's the beauty of this proposal. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, rather than tag an article with {(prod}} and then list it on this page, you merge and/or redirect the article and see if anyone objects (by un-merging/un-redirecting). -- Netoholic @ 20:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already do that when I can, but my point is, instead of voting "merge" or "redirect" you can actually do it and save us all the time and space. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template wording

Overall, I think the policy is good. However, I would recommend re-examining the wording of the template, keeping in mind that someone might read it who was not an experienced editor. The concept of "templates" is not immediately obvious to a new user, so telling someone "remove this template if you object" might be unfathomable. I would recommend adding wording like, "or add your objection on the <link>Discussion page", to make it easier for a new user or casual browser to express their concern. Elonka 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like but...

What stops this scenario:

  • I tag article A with prod
  • The creator removes prod, but the article really is trash.
  • The admin going through the log sees that the template has been removed and the article isn't deleted (I suppose at this point it would be the admin's responsiblity to AfD, but that isn't mentioned in the proposal)
  • I don't know the article wasn't deleted, so the trash remains.

That's a problem. No? (besides that I like the way this system works) Broken S 22:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a problem, in that controversial cases (or sock-supported cases) must be dealt with in some other way, which for the time being shall have to default to WP:AFD. However, I do expect PROD to take away most of the load from AFD, as well as redirecting effort now spent in arguing to 'keep' an article into effort actually spent in improving the article. I have been known to stick {{merge}} tags on AFD debates because they contained more information than the article itself. As a side point, if you wish to keep track of this, watchlist it. I believe most people watchlist deletion debates they're involved in. Radiant_>|< 23:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you tag an article you really should watchlist it also. then you will see the removal of a tag when/if it happens, adn can AfD it yourself. The admin may chose to AfD, but may not bother, and should not if s/he does not think it should be deleted, or at least that there is a serious case for deletion IMO. Besides, this probalem also applies to speedy deltetion, wher the tag can be simpley removed. For the matter of that if you AfD an article but never look at it again, you may not realize that it has been kept -- and ill-advised keeps do happen from time to time. DES (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we have to, we can change the rules so that the article's creator can't remove the tag by himself. He'd need to get a second opinion from a registered user with over 200 edits. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 23:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we should try it out first and see if this actually is a problem. If it turns out that it is, we can e.g. allow people to revert removal of a PROD tag if (1) done by an anon or sock, or (2) the article wasn't improved. Radiant_>|< 00:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely agree with that. I'm only suggesting a possible future rule change if we do, in fact, encounter this problem. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The nice thing about this proposal is that it's fail-safe. The worst that could happen is you tag an article for deletion, some sock comes along and un-tags it, and you end up having to bring it to AfD. You're in no worse shape than you are now. If sockpuppets turn out to be a problem, we can deal with them, but let's not hold up this proposal for fear that it won't work. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "delete" mean?

To paraphrase something I mentioned on the wikipedia-en list: There are three reasons for deleting:

Bad topic
The topic is simply inappropriate for Wikipedia and nothing could possibly be done to the article to fix it. Examples: Non-notable people or groups, non-notable crackpot theories. Solution: Remove article from Wikipedia.
Excessive prominence
The topic belongs somewhere on Wikipedia, but not as its own article. Examples: Less well-known songs of notable groups, minor characters of fictional series. Solutions: Merge content back to main article.
Bad content
Topic deserves its own article but this article is crap. Examples: Copyright vio, truly awful writing, substub, dictionary def. Solutions: Rewrite, trim back to stub, remove totally (if no one volunteers to rewrite)

So, which of these categories is this proposal intended to deal with? Is there any guarantee that excessively prominent articles will not be removed (rather than merged, as would be appropriate)? If the article is being nominated under the first category, appeals for rewriting are pointless. If the article is being nominated under the third category, deleting it may be a worse idea than trimming back to a stub.

I suggest that the nomination process should explicitly state which category of deletion is required, and possibly use different templates for each. Comments welcome. Stevage 00:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive prominence and bad content can be dealt with by editing, without any need to vote. Andjam 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ok, it's a discussion, not a vote, but what I mean is that AfD and PROD are bureaucratic measures, so editing is preferable to AfD or PROD. Andjam 01:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that many people in many cases are unable to tell the difference between the three cases you cite. Hence, a single template must suffice. However, unlike AFD, this process specifically requests people to edit/source/merge or otherwise improve the page. Thus, if you see a type-2 or type-3 on PROD, you can fix it instantly. That's the whole point, fixing articles.
  • Thus, to answer your question, this page is intended to delete type-1 (thus fixing them), and is likely to get its share of type-2 or type-3, and encourages people to fix those (thus also fixing them). Note that deleting a type-3 is not a big loss (a vocal minority complains on the principle, but consensus has it that if an article has to be rewritten from scratch anyway, deleting it is no big deal). Radiant_>|< 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea

I thought as an inclusionist I would hate this idea, but the proposal appears to be quite well thought-out, the FAQ above addresses every question I could think of, and well, you've done your homework. Perhaps my only objection is that, if this is used as a "gate" to decrease the number of articles hitting AfD, then the total time required to delete an article that is not a clear delete will go up (5 days on PropDel, 7 days on AfD). It could help to have an "emergency deletion process" for serious copyright issues, content actively receiving negative PR, and so on. Normally we'd just blank such pages while the deletion process goes on, but even blanking might not suffice if a permalink is made public (not that I'm aware of this ever happening). Deco 08:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that some large percentage (>50% perhaps) of PROD that move on to AFD would so in the first ~12 hours, due to attentive authors or patrollers. Also, the goal really isn't to delete articles in a shorter amount of time, instead the point is to let patrollers be more efficient in their work, to not have to investigate an article 6 times over when it's more or less an obvious delete. --Interiot 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a wonderful idea, and wholly support it. Great job, everyone! JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy for this to be given a whirl, and I'll even wish it good luck. It's a good idea, and I hope it finds its feet. Steve block talk 21:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anyone can always move an article to AfD at any time, no need to wait 5 days on PROD. If a copyvio is discoverd, the text can and should be instantly repalced with {{copyvio}} even if the article is on PROD or AfD, again no need to wait. DES (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors of nominated article

I agree with this proposal, with the following alteration:

Not all editors have the time or inclination to monitor Wikipedia articles they have created or edited. I therefore suggest that every person who has contributed an edit to an article nominated for deletion under this guideline be credited with a Keep vote. This follows naturally from Wikipedia:Assume good faith; we must assume that if the editor(s) in question had not intended for the article in question to be present in Wikipedia, they would have refrained from creating or editing it. -Ikkyu2 08:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're implicitly opposing the policy, since one keep vote is enough to prevent its deletion. It's reasonable to assume good faith, but usually these articles are created not out of malice but out of ignorance of our standards for inclusion (well, quite a few out of malice too). What is relevant is not whether the originator would vote keep, but whether that same originator would vote keep after these were explained. Deco 08:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, those things are relevant. Unfortunately, WIkipedia is not a crystal ball, and there's no way to know. Again, I think we must assume that good faith edits were intentionally placed by good faith editors. You're also right that I am opposing the policy, on the grounds that it violates the assumption of good faith prima facie; and also on the grounds that I could trivially rig a bot to object in my name to every single article proposed for deletion under this method. I personally wouldn't violate WP:POINT, but some other yobbo is sure to do so, wasting everyone's time. -Ikkyu2 09:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to oppose this on "good faith" grounds would be an argument against CSD as well, which is pretty well-established and at least some of its clauses are even accepted by most inclusionists. The "no crystal ball" comment cuts both ways - it may be that most of these cut-and-run article creators either are malicious or would realise they made a mistake after things are explained to them, if we could ever track them down.
As for the method's fragility, well, presumedly we have the discretion to ignore votes made in bad faith, solely to interfere with the process. We certainly do that with sockpuppets and such on AfD. Deco 09:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between this proposal and the criteria for speedy deletion is that the criteria for speedy deletion are criteria - official policy, at that - by which all good-faith Wikipedia editors are expected to abide. Some good-faith Wikipedia editors may not know this, but that fault lies with those editors, not with their articles. In contrast, the current proposal allows deletion of articles which are faultless - i.e. in violation of no criteria. This appears to me to be a mistake, because it violates the assumptions of good faith, and for other reasons. -Ikkyu2 10:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You assert that most of these cut and run article creators are either malicious or would realise they made a mistake. Let us assume that they are malicious (a violation of AGF). Therefore, you can assume that they would vote Keep on an article that violates standards. Now, let us assume that they are not malicious. They created the article, but you expect that they would realize that they made a mistake and agree with the deletion. Therefore, you are implicitly asserting that their vote would, at all times, be 'Delete'. Well, I assert otherwise. I assert that such people would in good faith instead suggest that your interpretation of the standards are in error, and would always vote 'Keep', preserving the article. Since the preservation of the article is not contingent on whether it can meet WP standards, but only on whether it can garner a single 'Keep' vote, all articles submitted under this proposal must be kept. In other words, unless you believe that all nominators for deletion must always be correct, and all article editors must always be wrong, you will admit that this proposal must necessarily result in the deletion of articles that should have been kept. -Ikkyu2 10:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Assuming automatic keep votes" is a perennial proposal at AFD, and it's simply not a good idea. One should not speak for others, and one cannot assume that if a person edits an article, that person would therefore want it kept. First, the person writing an article may well have been ignorant of Wikipedia standards. Second, if we cross that line, we could similarly assume that other people exist that want it deleted, for instance because of having expressed a related opinion in the past. And third, that suggestion would make any article supported by a sockpuppeteer impossible to delete. We must judge articles on their merit, not on assumptions or bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 09:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have eloquently explained the sound argument against assuming automatic keep votes at AfD. It does not apply here, because this proposal nowhere proposes to judge articles on their merit. -Ikkyu2 10:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it does. You must assume the good faith of the people reading it. Radiant_>|< 10:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you have to assume more than their good faith; you have to assume that they'll apply the standards with good faith, and also that they'll catch every article that is a good article, every time. In other words, you have to assume that someone will be infallibly right in preserving good articles. The current Wikipedia deletion policy says, 'When in doubt, don't delete'. What if every editor who reads the page thinks, "in good faith, I'm not qualified to cast a vote on this article?" The result is that the article gets deleted. Bad juju. -Ikkyu2 10:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, taking the principle esposed by Ikkyu2 to it's logical end, the removal of any text from a page is a violation of AGF, as, according to Ikkyu2, we must assume the original author meant for every jot and title to be in Wikipedia, so we cannot remove it. (Possibily, we could remove it if two people stated on the talk page that the word should be removed, but only then.) I hope it is clear that this is not how things are done on Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
What's clear to me is that Wikipedia has rules and guidelines that would-be editors can follow in good faith, presuming they will be able to create an article that adheres to them and won't be deleted. The process of consensus editing, as you know well, involves a lot of back and forth along the lines of: "your text is good, but this update to it allows it to more closely adhere to Wikipedia standards." The current proposal allows deletion of any article for any reason. Anyone can make the distinction between improving an article, and deleting it: a deleted article is not improved thereby, and cannot be improved thereafter. Therefore, the current proposal suggests that all Wikipedia standards may be discarded willy-nilly, in favor of deleting any article for any reason, unless someone - some hypothetical editor - casts a Keep vote in time. -Ikkyu2 10:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD already allows deletion of any article for any reason. Some articles are improved by being deleted, and most deleted articles can be rewritten anyway, thus improving them. Nor does this proposal suggest discarding of any standards. In other words, your logic is unsound. Radiant_>|< 10:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, such a presumption (that would-be editors can create an article that adheres to Wikipedia rules and guidelines and be sure it will not be deleted) is not valid. As was said above, articles can be deleted, at any time(following an accepted procedure), for any (or no) reason. What would-be editors can rely on is the general sensability of most people, and most people's ability to recognize competent, good work when they see it. That's the Wiki way, that's the principle that underies Wikipedia, and that's the same principle that is being applied in this proposal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 12:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


  • As for the perennial bot threat - it would be a violation of WP:POINT, and thereby not an issue; even if someone went through and, in clearly good faith, forced 90% of the Prod'ed articles onto AfD, we wouldn't be any worse off than we are today, no more effort would be wasted - so the bot threat is a non-issue that way also. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it out of process to use PROD to delete articles?

Here's my suggested revision of this paragraph:

Wikipedia isn't about process. This page deletes articles if nobody objects to the deletion. As such, it will not delete worthwhile articles, unless no one is willing to go to the trouble of ensuring that a nominated article is worthwhile. If you see an article listed here, you must read it in its entirety, judge it on its merits, and ensure that it either does or does not violate Wikipedia policies; otherwise, the process can fail, and worthwhile articles can be deleted by negligence.

For example, if a perfect 60 kB article from a specialized, highly technical field is referred for deletion on the grounds of verifiability and incorrect factual content, an editor with competence to review the entire article and verify every fact in it MUST review the article and vote to keep it, within 5 days.

This editor is expected to materialize out of thin air. Other editors, who do not have the expertise necessary to judge such an article, must in good faith abstain from voting; otherwise they will be casting Delete or Keep votes without a basis of competence to do so. They might as well be flipping a coin.

If the editor does not materialize out of thin air, the article is deleted. Oh well, tough tiddy. Maybe someone will come along and replace it someday - it's a wiki, after all! -Ikkyu2 10:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. A perfect article would have references, the existance and content of at least some of which would be checkable by any editor - if such an article was {{prod}}ed for unverifability, any editor could look at the existance of references, say "Oh, obviously invalid {{prod}}", and remove the tag - they would not need to know anything about the subject at all.
  2. "incorrect factual content" is also an obvious invalid reason for {{prod}}ing. The material should be excised from the current version, but there's no need to delete it. And, again, any editor, without knowing anything about the topic, could identify the nomination as invalid and remove it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 12:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Em, 'fuck process'? --Doc ask? 11:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I'd be happy to discuss any aspect of process. But Ikkyt is just repeating himself from the above couple of sections, and the flaws in his reasoning are already pointed out there. Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it right. Radiant_>|< 11:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is confused here. Factual inaccuracies should never be a reason for deleting a page. There are only three reasons:

  1. The topic doesn't belong on Wikipedia - you don't need to review the page for that.
  2. The topic doesn't deserve a whole article - someone should just merge it and redirect it. No need for a process.
  3. The article is nothing but copyvio or incomprehensible horseshit. Anyone can quickly glance at it and make that assessment.

What is all this crap about reviewing with the word MUST in capital letters? Stevage 22:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree with User:Stevage here -- while in some cases it is obvious that a topic does not belong, or that an article should be merged, or that the current contetns are garbage, all three of his cases have borderlines which need judgement calls. in those cases reasonable editors can and will disagree, and the question nmay well be impossible to decide withotu carefully examing the article. For example many AfDs hinge on notability, particualrly for bands, websites, and individual people. Whether a subject is notable enough, and jsut how notable is notable enough is not always obvious from the title of an article. DES (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the concerns of User:Ikkyu2 I think they are poorly expressed but have soem merit. Steictly speaking if enough people have supproted a test of this form of deletion to constitute a consensus for a temporary change of policy then any such deletion is in-process, otherwise it is out-of-process. That says nothing about whether the process is well-advised, or is likely to lead to good articles being deleted. If 1) many articles are tagged with {{Prod}} so that it is hard for anyone to look at all of them, or even to know which ones have been looked at by a trusted editor; and 2) a good but far from perfect article on an obscure topic is so tagged, perhaps because soemone thinks it is a haox, or is full of POV; then it is at least possible that such an articel would be delted under this system, when it probably would not have been if listed on AfD -- fo the matter of that god articels do sometimes get delted under AfD. This system makes it soemwhat easier to delete articles that not many people are watchign or intersted in, and whose titles are not obviously "important". That may leed to soemwhat more unwise deeltions in such cases -- we will have to see. Raisng the possibilty is not inappropriate. That may particuarlly be a problem with highly technical articels or soemwhat specialized historical artilces or the like -- articels where many people cannot easilyt tell a hoax from solid scholarship, and where many people don't care that much anyway. If one person, either in bad faith or in eroror, makes a persuasivbe sounding nom of such an articel, there is a chance that no one who feels qualified and intersted will review the matter within 5 days, and that the articel will consequently be deleted. If this becomes a problem, we may need to recise this process -- but ther is n way to tell in advance, IMO. DES (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the primary hole in Ikkyu's logic is "Other editors, who do not have the expertise necessary to judge such an article, must in good faith abstain from voting". They may not be in a position to judge whether the content is verifiable, but they may certainly vote keep to contest the reason for nomination, based on the reasonable belief that the article just needs to be looked at, not deleted, particularly if the deletion period has not already attracted enough attention from the original contributors. Deco 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they certainly may. What if they don't? The article could be deleted even though it shouldn't have been. Some articles have thousands of hours of work in them. -Ikkyu2 01:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so you're arguing that apathy about an article can result in article deletion without proper consideration. How about just requiring a deletion vote from a person other than the nominator to ensure that somebody's bothered to look at it? Deco 02:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Articles never get deleted automatically, they always require a closing admin to perform the delete. The proposal says "If the closing admin disagrees with an article's deletion, the admin should simply remove the template". Also, WP:DGFA says in large bold text "if in doubt, don't delete". This ensures that there will always be at least one semi-reputable person who looks at an article before it's hidden from view. Deletions can also of course be contested at WP:DRV if a problem is discovered afterwards. --Interiot 02:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is effectively a nil probablity that an article with "thousands of hours of work" involved in it's creation would be so totally ignored that no-one who worked on it, or found it useful, would look at it in five days, or contest it's deletion at DRV. This is not a plausable claim. If an article had thousands of hours of work put into it, it would be pretty much guarneteed to have been worked on by a large number of editors; or it would have been on the pedia for many days (2000(i.e. "thousands") hours, approx. 3 months), thereby also nearly guarneteed to have been seen by a number of editors. Also, if an article was deleted, and someone later came across it and wanted it back, it would be deeply easy to do so; a mere request on WP:DRV and it would be back. We lose nothing. This is a totally invalid reason to oppose the proposal. Thank you for your time. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, as noted by Interiot, the closing admin would probably say, 'hey, this is a good article', and not delete it. Deco 10:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this started?

Can we get this started already? I've just run across a unsourced biographical substub that seems tailor-made for running through the "proposed deletion" process. It makes a plausable claim of notability (so it can't be speedy-deleted), but gets zero non-Wikipedia Google hits, so I can't verify the guy's existance, much less the claim. I'd really rather not go through the effort of a full VfD on something that's a slam-dunk deletion. --Carnildo 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay your hand, my friend. We start next Sunday :) - Haukur 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people have already started using this process and {{prod}}ding articles. I think that's perfectly fine and will only serve to draw more attention or interest. However, it should be understood that the test run begins on February 4th, and that no articles shall be deleted via this process until five days after that, i.e. Feb 9th. Radiant_>|< 15:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Maybe I'm missing it somewhere, but can proposed deletion be used for redirects? Deli nk 16:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I don't have any particular objection to that, it may turn out to be kind of confusing, and I should note that WP:RFD already works on this principle (no objections = delete) and is not particularly backlogged. Radiant_>|< 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before proposing deletion of any redirects (and I know which ones you may e thinking of, Deli nk) be sure to read the guidelines for deleting redirects in WP:RFD. Notice that "humorous" is not a reason listed for propsing deletion of resdirects and possible usefulness is a reason for not deleting redirects. Thus, my redirects, which are based on widely used, nonambiguous and non misleading slang terms do not seem to fit the bill of the type of redirects that merit deletion. There is a method to my madness -- some content is relevant even though it is humorous or gross because it reflects common usage of terminolofy. My redirects and contirbutions fit this bill -- although they may be a bit silly-seeming, they are at least as well known as other synonyms floating around redirect and disambiguation pages throughout wikipedia. Interestingstuffadder 17:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good

I support this proposal. --Improv 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logs again

I see that the proposal has been changed to remove the on-wiki log. I repeat that I very strongly object to this. Indeed I object to the proposal running without on-wiki logs. I don't feel that any of the ressons why such logs would be 1) highly desireable and 2) not overly burdensome to create were really addressed above. Please, please reconsider this choice. DES (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand that, but the automated logging is indeed two steps simpler (KISS principle), and the reasons you cited earlier for having a wikilog (that it allows one to see what articles were added or removed, and gives post facto analysis of how many noms are deleted) are also possible with the toolserver log. Note also that the toolserver log is a page where all relevant proposed deletions are listed and sorted by day, and it is also fully accessible to anyone without a toolserver account. Of course this wouldn't work with a plain category, but we're not suggesting that any more.
  • That said, this is a test run, and it may become necessary to tweak the system a bit after the first two weeks or so. From that point of view, it's always easier to add complexity later on if it proves necessary or desirable, than it would be to remove it. >Radiant< 23:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing the history of what pages were added or removed does not seem to be possible with the toolserver log yet. I believe that adding this feature to the system is very important and should be done ASAP, or we should go back to an on-wiki log. 134.10.12.42 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (actually User:JesseW, just logged out)[reply]

Would it be sufficient if a bot updated an on-wiki log once an hour or so from the data on Interiot's toolserver app? (Alternately, and this would be much easier - on the order of about ten minutes to do - I could make something that would dump the current contents of a category to a specific page. This wouldn't be sorted by date, though, unless the category was.) —Cryptic (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While that would not be ideal IMO, It would be sufficent for me not to object strongly. i want 1) the ability to see the history of changes to the log, and ideally who made them (I don't get the last with the copied log, but I'll live with that) and to watchlist the log to note changes (again thsi is less useful with teh copied log than with a one-at-a-time updated log, but I can live with that). The category based version would be enough for the test, at least, IMO DES (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a copy of the log on-wiki also, for reference purposes, but I wouldn't mind a delay in posting it. On the other hand, I like the idea of keeping the "live" log automatic, and would like to see this page eventually moved to an official URL. Wiki just isn't suitable for everything, and we too often stretch it to fit purposes it does not suit. Deco 02:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How long a "delay" do you consiser OK? I have not problem with 10 minutes or so, and not much with a once-an-hour update. Once a day or once a week is another mattter, IMO. DES (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with once a day, but in the spirit of compromise an hour sounds good, if the script's originator is comfortable with that. Deco 02:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crypticbot's now dumping a copy of the toolserver output to User:Crypticbot/Proposed deletion at 45 minutes after the hour. It should be reasonably resilient to formatting changes, but let me know if you notice it breaking. —Cryptic (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I at least will find that quite helpful. DES (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of features that I'd like to add, some should be done before Feb 4, some can probably wait a little longer, especially since PROD procedure isn't solidified yet, and it's not accepted policy. My current priorities are: 1) record everything that shows up in the category, and record when it leaves. 2) along with displaying that historical log, display what happened to it after {{prod}} was removed (currently unmarked, is deleted, or has been added to one of the *FD categories), 3) find the exact diff of when when {{prod}} was removed (I'll have a +- 5 minute window, possibly less), and list the edit summary for the removal, 4) post that data to the wiki on a semi-regular basis, if there's demand for it. #1 should be done before Feb 4th, just because IMHO that makes this a better experiment. I'll probably store this in the MySQL database on the toolserver, and can produce queries on it as needed. I think that having machine-parsable data like this is much better than having pure wikitext history. --Interiot 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thewn can we please in the meantime have at least cryptic's suggested dump of the category membership to an on-wiki log, to be replaced when you get to number 4 above? And I think there will be a demeand for that. DES (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on my projected amount of free time, my understanding of what's important for Feb 4, and my lack of experience with bot code, I probably won't be the one who implements #4 by Feb 4. --Interiot 03:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. I think we should stick with #1 for now; once this is running we will get lots of suggestions and will have to tweak the process anyway, and possibly produce more data in certain organizations. I mostly see demand for a list of when articles get removed (I'll second that, too), but DESiegel seems to be the only one who insists that the list must be on the wiki instead of on the toolserver. >Radiant< 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

repeated prods

I'm generally in favor of this, but I have a concern about good-faith prods. If/as this becomes more popular, articles that fall within its scope are likely to receive prods, have them removed by boosters, and then be prodded again by someone on RC patrol or other well-meaning folks. Yes, they should check the history before prodding, but I can forsee bad feelings over this. Perhaps a process requiring a note on the talk page similar to {{oldafdfull}} when it gets removed, even though that adds another step? Another option is an HTML comment on the article page when the prod is removed, but that's a rather non-wiki way of doing things, and not exactly intuitive to boot. The rest of this process looks good, although I agree with DES about the on-wiki log, if it's possible later. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good question. I think the burden should lie on the deleting admin. It's really not a problem if an article is prodded multiple times, especially if the people removing the tag also improve the article to address the concern given. But a repeatedly prodded article shouldn't be deleted because of that; controversial deletion should be discussed on AFD instead. Also, it would help if people used clear edit summaries when adding or removing the tag. >Radiant< 00:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't want an absolute ban on re-proding though - a measure of common sense. If a piece of obvious near-nonsense gets tagged and the tag immedately removed, but no-one sends it to afd, and then much later (even weeks) somone re-taggs it, and it sails through prod, it would be crazy for the admin to send it to afd on a technicality. --Doc ask? 16:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion Has Begun

It's February 4th according to UTC. Am I to assume that the proposed deletion era has begun? — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've alredy tagged soem pages. DES (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rm prod, add afd???

It's unclear if this was the intent of how this is supposed to work, but I removed the prod template from List of notable Veterans of other conflicts and moved it to AfD. While I think the article should be deleted, I didn't think it was so totally without merit that getting voted down in AfD was a fore-gone conclusion. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...the idea is that if anyone *actually disagrees* then, and only then, do they move it to AFD. Proposed Deletion is like, "if there are no objections, delete", and if anyone has an objection, it goes to a full discussion on AfD. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 02:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That means you have to FIND such a person... removing and AfDing just means you BELIEVE such a person almost certainly exists. I think the latter may be safer. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy creep

I've removed the statement, Please don't remove "prod" tags because you think other people might disagree with them. Feel free to remove them if you disagree with them, though. As far as I can tell, this was never part of the policy until I raised the issue here as a question. I don't believe there is any consensus that such a statement should be part of the policy. I think it's a perfectly legitimate thing to say, I, myself, think the article should go, but I can certainly see why other people might not agree, and try to engage a larger collection of people to make the decision. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was a friendly request, not a binding mandatory statement. The idea is that I hope that people judge articles on their merit, rather than on general principle that somebody might exist that might disagree. We do far too many things on this wiki based on hypothetical situations that don't actually occur. >Radiant< 16:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me if this is wrong

If this thing really gets off to a good start, you'll end up seeing over a hundred articles a day added to the category. After that, anyone who's interested in saving good articles from deletion will have to look at every one of them to see if there's any merit. However, there's no way to actually make a comment in the effect of "I don't think it has any redeeming qualities" and instead everyone else will have to check through the exact same nominations, since there's no way to tell that someone else has actually went through the trouble. In the end, you'll have a ton of people having to wade through all the articles. I just don't see how it can work in practice. - Bobet 12:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a way to make a comment. Just go to the article's talk page and say "I've checked this and it really doesn't seem to have merit". 12:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
So instead of looking at every discussion on an afd page, you'll have to go through every talk page? How is that an improvement? It will end up just the same, except the discussion will be separated into hundreds of different pages. - Bobet 12:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that if someone does think the article has redeeming qualities, it is unlisted. People can tell a lot from the article titles, and summaries given on the prod list. It's simply not true that everybody has to wade through all the articles (nor, in fact, do people do that on AFD). >Radiant< 12:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if someone thinks there are redeeming qualities, the article is unlisted and after that probably goes to afd anyway (since the person who originally tagged it will probably still contest that it should be deleted). I'm talking about things that really are obvious deletions. In afd you wouldn't have to wade through all the articles, since it's easy to see when people have commented on them (on the afd page or on User:Dragons flight/AFD summary/Few votes) but in here, how do you easily tell that someone actually agrees with the nominator (or indeed, has even looked at the article)? - Bobet 12:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't. The only safeguard is that the nominator shouldn't perform the actual deletion so you need at least two people to agree. But AfD already has a lot of pointless duplication of work (pile-ons). - Haukur 14:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they're speedies, speedy them. Other than that, a possibility that comes to mind is creating a "prod-2" tag, that indicates that somebody has agreed with the request to delete, but is otherwise identical. The toolserver log could add a check mark to all those articles, and of course people are still free to "veto" them. But I'm not sure if that's worth the trouble. >Radiant< 14:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is worth the trouble of a {{prod-2}} tag. If it's not going to be redeemable, it should be fairly obvious from a cursory glance. People "wade through" a ton of articles all the time on RC/new articles patrol, and if they're speediable or proposable, they should be fairly quick. The minute someone disagrees with the prod, it's removed from the list and goes to AfD (or is just removed in the case of bad-faith noms) and it failsafes out of this system. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very good start

This is off to an excellent start. Most of the articles listed are appropriate, and the procedure of cleaning up and removing the tag is simple and intuitive. No more pointless, acrimonuous battles over stuff that shouldn't have been listed for deletion in the first place. Just add a few references, or turn it into a redirect, and off you go! --Tony Sidaway 13:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When PROD tag is removed

I'm wondering whether it is possible to keep a list of articles (say in the last 48 hours) where the prod tag has been removed. My one small worry with this system is that an NP partoler spots a POS article and tags it, and then the author later untags it. If the patroler hasn't watched it, or has gone off, it may not get AfD'd. If we had a log of de-tagged articles, someone else can check through it and send any obvious junk to AfD. --Doc ask? 15:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling on this is that if it doesn't eventually get AfD'd, it probably didn't need to be AfD'd. If an article is potentially defamatory, a copyright infringement, an attack, or otherwise damaging, it should be removed from the wiki as soon as possible, but this isn't the mechanismto use for that. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one from Emma Shea because it struck me as a notable topic... but then I did some digging and couldn't find a single reference! So I put the article up for AfD. In hindsight I should have dug first before removing, but based on how the process works, I couldn't just put the prod tag back... I've also been putting small plugs in various AfD's that maybe that particular AfD could have been PRODded but I think putting info in the main WP:AfD, as was also done (by Radiant?) is probably as effective or more (Not all voters review it but presumably people about to AfD something might...) ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a problem with reverting yourself. Likewise, if someone entirely blanks an article that happens to have a prod tag stuck to it, I plan to rollback just like with any other article blanking. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the policy was that if it was removed for any reason that was it, doesn't count. I guess it would be commonsensical that the policy doesn't apply to self removal-reinsertion (er, sorry for that image there, folks). ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_prod_history --Interiot 17:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion&oldid=38171530"