Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Quick PROD ?[edit]

Sometimes I propose an article for deletion in the New Page queue, providing a rationale, such as that it has no references and is too short to add encyclopedic value. It is typically a stub whose subject doesn't fall cleanly into any of the A7 subcategories. There is enough content, just barely, so that it isn't no context or no content. Then, maybe 12 to 24 hours later, I see that the article has been deleted with the explanation of Expired PROD. On the one hand, I don't disagree with the deletion. However, it doesn't appear to be the way proposed deletion was meant to be used. It appears to be a case where an administrator has decided that the article needs deleting, which it does. However, if the deleting admin thought that it qualifies for A1 or A7, I would have been able to learn from their choice of subcategory for future use. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

    • Think it would be better if it was speedy deleted by the admin then the reason would be clear Atlantic306 (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I see no way in which the course of events you describe follows our deletion policy. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It hasn't just happened once. I agree that it would be better for the deleting admin to use a speedy code. I might actually learn that that is a case for speedy deletion. I PROD an article if I don't think it meets any of the speedy criteria, such as it makes no credible claim of significance but isn't one of the A7 subjects. I would always rather use speedy if speedy is possible, so I would like to see why the admin decided to speed up the PROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Such deletions should be raised at deletion review as clearly out of process. If there is a pattern of such actions by a single admin, that person should be brought to WP:ANI for admonishment, and if need be, to ARBCOM for desysoping. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Please note, however, that not all deletions in this time are inappropriate. For example:
  1. பீண்டி பஜார் was deleted under A2 (foreign-language articles which are on the correct language's Wikipedia)
  2. Indecisas was deleted under G11 (spam)
  3. Central Lakeshore Conference was deleted as an article about an event (a topic covered by A7)
  4. बालविवाह was deleted under A10 (areticle which duplicates content from an existing article)
This covers all articles you tagged during the past week and were deleted already. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Amendment to policy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Snow opposed.This is not just a change in language but essentially seeks to alter the fundamentals of PROD-Deletion--and that has been unanimously opposed by every participant.Also, there seems to be a major problem with the assertion that all prodded-articles always gets deleted.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Currently policy states "If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." This shouldn't be allowed. It simply wastes time at AFD for articles that obviously won't survive yet don't explicitly meet CSD criteria. We don't allow the page creator to remove speedy tags, and no one is allowed to remove AFD tags except after the discussion, so why are we allowing PROD templates to be removed? Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose amendment That clause is very important. If there's any opposition to the deletion and PROD is removed, there's nothing preventing any editor from either improving the page or re-nominating it for a discussion at a larger forum such as WP:FFD or WP:AFD. At least then, more editors can take a look at the specific circumstances regarding the page instead of a process where it's possible only two editors are involved. I use proposed deletion a lot for files, there have been cases where the original uploader has removed the tag for perfectly valid reasons and I think their right to do that is a key part to balancing the process. Regards, Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's intended to be a very lightweight approach for uncontroversial deletions for any valid deletion reason, unlike CSD which requires clear, quasi-objective reasons. The author of an article can't simply disagree with a CSD tag that was placed accurately, but can disagree with a prod because his/her objection makes deletion controversial. On some obscure page, the author might be the only one watching. AfD creates a forum for others to notice and get involved; otherwise, it's much too likely nobody else would see it and the article would be deleted. Prod is designed to take some of the burden off of AfD that way... but not too much. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose suggested amendment: The Prod is intended to reduce AfD workload for an uncontroversial rationale-based deletion; removal of a notice is sufficient indication of disagreement as to make AfD appropriate if the deletion is to be pursued. Sometimes too, the article creator will have addressed the Prod rationale with improvements as well as removing the notice. Frustrating as it is, especially with low participation leading to multiple relistings, but AfD is the appropriate place for material discussion. AllyD (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. If a PROD tag is removed, that clearly indicates that somebody is unhappy with the deletion, so it deserves a discussion. I personally have witnessed many deprodded articles going on to survive AfD. Altamel (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per others, allowing removal of prod is intentional. This section should be closed per WP:SNOW. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. PROD should be subject to the same rules as CSD and AFD. KMF (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose CSD, PROD and AFD are used for singifivcantly different cases. In theory, everything (other than housekeeping and Office Actions) should be deelted only under XFD; however, due to the overload to XFD which would result, the community has accepted some shortcuts which apply under strict rules. CSD applies to a small number of reasons, based on the understanding that nearly every page which meets each of these criteria would be deleted under an XFD discussion. PROD works on the claim that no one, not even the author, explicitly opposes the deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The PROD page is often large and cluttered, and there is no assurance that an interested third editor will notice and examine the topic and find it worth the effort to improve and save it. If an article creator is willing to defend an article written in good faith, they're entitled to a true hearing as in AfD. We have speedy deletion categories for articles that are very very likely to be no good to the encyclopedia. But prodded pages get saved every day; I've personally expanded and saved many such articles myself.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose PROD is designed to be an easily contestable deletion process. Since it gives the author time to improve the article (rather than deleting outright) there is no reason not to allow that author to remove the tag if they have addressed the issues raised. Yunshui  10:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Snow oppose: If the PROD tag was removed, it should been AFDed after that which is not timewasting, and makes no sense. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 11:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. PROD is intended solely for uncontested deletions. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PRODs of re-created articles that are substantially different than previously deleted version[edit]

The policy says: PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD.

I agree that this makes sense in the case of articles where the result of a previous discussion was keep.

But what about articles that are re-created several years after they were deleted as a result of an AfD or FfD discussion. A {{db-repost}} speedy tag may not be appropriate because the new version is not substantially identical to the deleted version, and given the passage of time a re-evaluation of notability may be appropriate.

Could the eligibility of such newly re-created articles for PROD tagging be reset?

I patrol for {{error}}s and such errors where articles are PRODed when technically ineligible occur frequently. For example, we currently have:

In each case, the previous AfD is very old. Thoughts on this? I don't know whether this issue has been previously discussed, as I didn't search the substantial archives. If it has, a link or two would be appreciated. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • If an article subject was appropriate to go for an AfD discussion previously, then I would say any new article on the subject is not eligible for Prod and a new AfD discussion is needed. AllyD (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    Noting that ThinkTank Learning was just deleted via PROD, even though there is a previous AfD in the history. I'm not contesting the deletion, just noting that it wasn't strictly by established procedure. WP:IAR, I suppose. I'm not sure anyone is actively patrolling Category:Proposed deletions needing attention, as ThinkTank Learning would have been sitting in that category for a full week (sorted to D) before it was deleted. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)