Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, and don't panic.

Proposed deletion for my page[edit]

I received a proposed deletion for my page and I want to know how to get rid of it. What can I do?

Alex17b (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alex17b: I see you removed the proposed deletion. You are allowed to do that but I have now nominated Alexander Bateman at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Bateman. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


There is a discussion now taking pace at the village pump that may be related to the subject of this policy/guideline page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Slight tweak[edit]

Right now, the "Procedure for administrators" section reminds us to check that "The {{proposed deletion}} tag has been in place continuously for at least 7 days". What about changing that to "...tag has been visible on the article continuously..."? This is in response to the "Deceitful PRODs" section at the current version of WP:AN, in which a user has been found habitually to be prodding articles deceitfully: prod the article, comment out the tag a minute later, and uncomment it after it's expired, so that it can be deleted without any chance of review or opposition to anyone who doesn't check the history or edit the article. For ordinary purposes, my proposed change won't make any difference, but it will reinforce the importance of making PROD tags visible to everyone. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support (here from AN); it is a belt-and-braces means of ensuring that this situation will not need to be addressed again, and if it does, there will be no need for lengthy AN threads. Muffled Pocketed 12:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this is really more of a user conduct issue than a problem with the PROD process or language. Occasionally someone will figure out a way to trick a few reviewing admins and eventually be caught if they make a habit of it, and then we deal with the user. That said, I don't see any harm in making that change to the language. Monty845 14:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's more of a user conduct issue. That's why I didn't suggest expanding the policy itself; if someone does this again, we can say "Policy says this shouldn't be done", but my proposed rewording really isn't any rule creep, isn't introducing any new provisions or bureaucracy. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Needless bureaucracy. If a user is shown to have been gaming the system - and this is the first I can recall having done this - we can undelete really rather quickly. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It's hardly bureaucracy to change around a few words just to reinforce existing good practice; admins should already be doing this before deleting, and tagging users should already not be doing this, so the proposal just makes our current standards a little clearer. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's bureaucracy, enforcing a check for something that one user did. Wikipedia is supposed to be a cluocracy, and most admin task lists are permanently backlogged. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Most PRODded articles have few, if any, revisions following the tag. This adds little overhead for administrators and helps guard against a source of abuse. In this instance, it was a single account gaming the system, which made examining his past PRODs a simple matter. What if, instead, it had been done with a series of SPAs or IP addresses? I don't think it's wise to count on cheaters making their work easy to track. Rebbing 12:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support closing potential loophole. Proposal does not make guidelines any more difficult to follow for the normal case. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support GiantSnowman 19:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Why not boldly add it in now? After all, it is just a clarification. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • SNOW Support We should definitely codify this as an inappropriate and disruptive behaviour, lest the tactic now be exploited. Snow let's rap 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support It's a good idea, but what about WP:BEANS? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point and a reasonable concern, but I do not think the exploit itself is immediately evident from the changed wording being presently proposed. Snow let's rap 06:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Snow Rise ~Kvng (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done per clear consensus. Rebbing 11:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Is adding a link to one user talk page in PROD rationale ok?[edit]

See my question at Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#Is_making_a_reference_to_one.27s_username_in_a_proposed_deletion_template_acceptable.3F. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you look at using {{old prod full}} on the talk page of articles you prod. The |nom=Piotrus |nomdate={{SUBST:ISO date}} |nomreason= parameters can be used to convey the information you've been putting in the description. Of course the downsides are you need to edit two pages to prod and you've got to get deprodders to look at the talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Jocelyn Jones[edit]

The required seven days had passed for the deletion proposal at Jocelyn Jones, with the template here reading, "This message has remained in place for seven days, so the article may be deleted without further notice." An anon IP, however, unilaterally undid the deletion that had duly passed, swooping in before an admin could delete the article. I've restored the template confirming that deletion proposal was passed, and I ask, please, for an admin to complete the process. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Any one can remove the PROD even after the 7 days are up and it is a valid DePROD and the PROD can not be restored. It is no different than if an Admin had found it first and deleted and the IP went to WP:REFUND and asked for it to be restored. It would be restored and the article would have to go to AFD to be deleted. That is what needs to happen here, if you think this should be deleted, you must use WP:AFD. - GB fan 15:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Just for reference, this is one discussion that includes dePRODing after the 7 day period, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive926#User:Kvng. - GB fan 16:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Difference between AfD and PROD[edit]

Hi, I am now clearly aware of the differences between AfD and PROD, but I once AfDed a PRODed article because I thought PROD was the more cautious option. Should there be some text or essay that differentiates between the two? Is there already such a passage in existence? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

PROD means "I'm sufficiently sure that it is uncontroversial that this article doesn't conform in some manner to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so let me try not to waste anyone's time on a formal discussion." There is no reason why you would start a deletion discussion on an article while leaving a PROD tag in place. One might initiate a discussion while removing the PROD tag if one agrees that deletion is probably warranted but that it isn't so clear-cut and that more input should be solicited. Largoplazo (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)