Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 9

Prodding after "no consensus" AfD with nobody arguing to keep?
I consider editing the policy by adding the words in italics below, or by making some other, equivalent, change:
 * This procedure is only for completely uncontroversial situations. In particular, articles that:
 * have previously been proposed for deletion using the process;
 * have previously been undeleted, or
 * have been discussed at AfD (where an editor argued for keeping the article)
 * are not candidates for.

Rationale: I believe the intention behind the current wording is that an article must not be prodded when there is any evidence that any other editor would object. However, currently when an article generates almost no discussion at AfD, there may be a "no consensus" closure after nobody argued for keeping. The counterintuitive result of this is that in some cases an editor who is 90% sure that an article should be deleted may want to prod it (risking an inappropriate deletion) instead of sending it to AfD, to avoid the strange situation where one other editor agrees the article should be deleted, nobody else opines, the result after relisting is "no consensus", and the article becomes effectively invulnerable. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem I would have with this is instruction creep. BTW, do you have an example of this happening? --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I confess I don't have an example. I came up with the idea while doing some research for WT:Articles for deletion. Perhaps it's a solution without a problem. I don't think it's instruction keep, though, as it would replace three separate instructions by a single instruction with three examples. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you're right. It's not a bad idea, just seems unnecessary.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The current tendency is to relist afds with few contributors until some consensus emerges. this may have been a problem in the past, but if it should occur, just start another afd and call attention to the situation.DGG (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As there doesn't seem to be any support or agreement that there is a problem, I'll simply withdraw the proposal. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the argument for instruction creep, but dismiss it-- it's actually removing an implicit instruction NOT to prod. So although technically it's adding an instruciton, actually it's giving more freedom to do the right thing. SimonTrew (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's creep because it's adding another exception into PROD that there's not really much of a need for. If low volume AFDs are really such a huge problem, then it's worth talking about.  I'm not seeing it.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion sorting
As mentioned at WP:CSD, a lot of the deletion sorting pages already have sections for proposed deletions, such as WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/American_football. They're all a little different, though; they have different section names, some use prodded and some don't, some have an explanation and some don't. If you guys like the look of that one, then I'll conform other sections to the look of that one as I add prods. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 16:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not getting any friction on this. Next subject: I do more downgrading from speedy deletion to prod than other admins do; is it too much?  There are a variety of articles where I get at least a little grumbling for wasting people's time if I bring them directly to AfD: articles where there seems to be consensus at AfD to keep even when no one can find sources (such as most higher secondary schools), articles where sources can easily be found by someone who knows the subject area well but I didn't know where to look (which is why I'm posting on deletion sorting pages), articles that have little content where it seems reasonable that we'd want an article on that subject, but the article creator claims they weren't given enough time, etc.  I don't like to speedy if I think there's a reasonable shot of saving the article, and often the result of tagging for something other than deletion when there's something wrong is that we don't get around to deleting the article til years later, so I'm thinking that prod is often a good option, but maybe I'm not seeing things right. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 15:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just found one tool on the deletion sorting page for WP:ANIME, CatScan. It looks for articles that are in both the "prodded" and "anime" cats, but it looked like it was using fairly old data. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 19:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I could probably write a BOT to automatically delsort based on categories on the page, if such is deemed helpful and appropriate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 20:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually ... we don't necessarily need a new bot, I just found out that Article Alerts can handle prods; see WikiProject Philosophy/Article alerts. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisting 5 &rarr; 7 day change
So, here's the problem. I just found out minutes ago that PROD was 7 days instead of 5. And from looking at the discussions elsewhere, a lot of people are in the same boat. I think that the proposal was just not very well advertised, and the results are skewed. Should we try to poll again? X clamation point  14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I oppose the 5 to 7 day change. X clamation point  14:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to toot my own horn, but WP:Update is the only source I'm aware of for monthly policy updates. I got criticized in the thread above  for making the change to 7 days to the April update for WP:PROD, but if I hadn't, we'd be having more people drop by saying they didn't know. - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It was advertised on WP:CENT, WP:AN and WP:DELPOL. 38 editors opined with the !vote at 27-11. It seems unlikely more input would change the result. Also, the extra two days haven't lead the the "massive bad faith removals" some predicted. To my eye, the change has had a very minor effect and certainly doesn't need more widespread approval. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Autobiographies
If a biography is prod'ed, and the subject eirself removes the notice, is that a valid contestation? I'm thinking specifically about Jeff Riggenbach. Bob A (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Prod removals don't (currently) need to be "valid". If anyone objects to a prod, send it to AFD. Rd232 talk 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say there can be some "invalid" prod removals (clear vandalism, a banned user), but this isn't one of them. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguations
Why can't disambiguation pages be deleted after an expired prod? See this for example. Seems to then use up AfD time unnecessarily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned they can be deleted by PROD (and are fairly often). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier discussions that I have been involved in or made aware of:
 * User talk:B.Wind
 * Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 8
 * Wikipedia talk:VfD
 * I believe the consensus is that dabs should be handled under AfD, and given that, my hope is that the consensus is that pages handled under AfD can also be subject to PROD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem simpler to redirect them to the only subject; that saves a bit of work if another X Y becomes notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirecting the base name to the only subject, yes, that's exactly what has been done. Are you suggesting that we also redirect pages that include "(disambiguation)" in the title to articles (not disambiguation pages)? That does not sound useful, since the redirect title would then be claiming to be something it's not. And sometimes there's not even one subject. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's more than one subject in the dab, why delete it at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Valid disambiguations (those listing 2+ actual articles in need of disambiguation) are not prodded and shouldn't be deleted. That's not the case for the disambigs that get prodded or go through AfD though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Claret Run
And some related drinking run routes. Should these be merged maybe? -- Banj e b oi   08:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any notability there at all, and am inclined to AfD. Other pub crawl articles, like the Otley Run, are cited to sources (not all of them good, but at least they're there); this one might even fall foul of WP:MADEUP. What do you think? Gonzonoir (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been so long I don't recall why I even posted here. If no sources seem to churn up from due diligence then I suggest redirect to pub crawl or similar and bypass AfD altogether. I rarely go on drinking binges of this sort and avoiding truely disparaging comments on York I will admit i fully understand the desire to drink when there... -- Banj e  b oi   09:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is'real Benton
7 July 2009 The article on Is'real Benton should not be deleted. It is needed the career of this artist needs to be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caftingdept (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert
I have reverted this edit as I can see no discussion for such a change, which gives the appearance of encouraging users not to leave an edit summary when removing a prod (or at least feeling justified in not leaving an edit summary). pablo hablo. 10:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The main point is that there seems to have been a recent change whereby edit summaries automatically show when a proposed deletion tag has been removed. I'm not sure where that was discussed and enacted but it seems a sensible time-saving feature.  As it removes the need for editors to repeat the same information, our guidance should be adjusted accordingly.  The emphasis in my change was to encourage discussion on the talk page as this is the best place for extended discussion of an article's future. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just important to explain that you removed a prod, sometimes it is important to explain why. And encouraging people to not leave summaries is never a good idea.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ES which makes it clear that edit summaries are not the place to hold discussions upon contentious matters. This is for several reasons: it encourages editors to revert, which is quite wrong in this case; and it causes difficulty if the discussion becomes uncivil because the comments cannot easily be amended.  Contesting a proposed deletion is inherently contentious and so the best place to discuss the issue is the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh. There is the discussion we want and the discussion we will have and never the twain shall meet.  I would prefer that prod removals (And placements) and CSD removals (And placements) contain a note in the edit summary explaining (if possible) why the edit was made.  If, as ES prefers, editors choose to say "see talk page" and make a full justification on the talk page, that is great.  But that doesn't happen too often.  So rather than have this policy suggest that an edit summary be avoided, we should just leave it the way it was. Protonk (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no suggestion that a discussion should be held or started in the edit summary field. Typing "see talk" (if an explanation is then given on the talk page is not too onerous, surely?) The edit summary field often contains system-generated text - for example, unless I add to it, the edit summary for this edit will read (→Revert) - this does not change the fact that it is desirable to leave an informative edit summary for the use of others viewing the page history. pablo hablo. 09:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The current text reads "Editors should explain why they disagree...". This is an invitation to discuss the matter.  In my experience, I usually disagree with the stated reason because it is false or wrong.  I tried stating that briefly in edit summaries but found that this was not understood and just led to confusion.  Best to keep it simple.  The essential point is that the proposed deletion tag has been removed and, now that a bot is taking care of that, we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that you are misreading things in at least two ways. First, I don't see the removal of a prod as analogous to a dispute.  Obviously there is something two editors disagree about, but PROD removal is as uncontentious as it gets.  In that sense noting the removal/reason for de-prodding isn't so much continuing a dispute as it is explaining an action.  If I remove an image from a page (just to keep it simple, let's just assume for style reasons) and the explanation fits in <200 characters, I have no problem offering that explanation in toto in the edit summary.  Obviously someone disagrees with me about the image itself, by virtue of its presence on the page.  But a dispute hasn't really cropped up yet.  Second, I don't think it is an appropriate reading of ES to suggest that we should default to no info whatsoever.  If we assumed that deprodding was a step in a dispute, then ES would suggest we forego the edit summary and make a post of the talk page.  Should someone want to do that, great.  But I don't feel a guideline that suggests more communication should be cited to justify less communication. Protonk (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In patrolling here & elsewhere, I find it helps to a considerable extent upon seeing  as much info.  as possible in the summaries in the page history--It makes it easier to quickly spot  likely problems. DGG (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the addition of hangon be taken as a contested prod
Recently I've seen hangon added to quite a lot of prods. Although clearly not what should be done I've taken this as the editor contesting the prod and removed the prod as well. However I have also seen other editors just remove the hangon tag an leave the prod in place. To me contesting the prod seems the obvious intent of the person who added the hangon and the editor's views shouldn't be ignored simply because they are not aware of all of wikipedia's (often complex) procedures. Consquently I'd propose adding under Conflicts, Contested deletions a number 3:
 * 3. If someone incorrectly adds a hangon tag to a page that has a prod tag then this is equivalent to contesting the proposed deletion and both the prod and hangon tags should be removed.

Interested in the views of others as I suspect this may not be completely uncontentious. I suspect most people may agree with my reasoning but query whether it is a neccessary addition. I'm not entirely sure it should go on this page myself as it may result in more people incorrectly adding hangon tags but I feel it's a reasonably important point and not sure where else it could go. Dpmuk (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to be added, though I think the people who add the tag should be notified. I really don't think we need a section based upon every possible thing that someone unfamiliar with the process can do wrong.  And yes, I would absolutely consider it contested at that point. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have my own personal list of things I do when looking at prodded pages on my page and what I do is look for any indication that there is a protest against the deletion. I check the talk page and I check the talk pages of the author and other significant contributors (sometimes people will reply to the prod notice placed on their talk page). If there's any indication that someone doesn't want the page deleted I consider it controversial, and a hangon notice is definitely an indication even if it's being used incorrectly. I don't think it needs specific mention though. --  At am a chat 20:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Modifying a PROD rationale
On occasion, I have modified a PROD rationale when I felt the existing one didn't adequately explain the reason why an article should be deleted. My thinking was that once an article is gone, the PROD rationale is usually the only information an editor can see when looking at the page. Thus, I figure it should impart as much information as possible.

Another editor questioned this practice, as it could potentially be seen as modifying another editor's comments. I countered that a PROD reason isn't really attributed to any editor, even though it was obviously placed by one. He/she more-or-less agreed, but since there is no official guideline we decided to take it here for more input.

So the question is: is it permissible to modify an existing PROD's rationale? If so, should the instructions mention this? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Use of the prod-2 tag seems better than modification of the original prod. Your point about what is seen when the article is gone seems confusing because, when it is gone, it is no longer visible here.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The deletion rationale is visible to anyone who might potentially want to recreate the article though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ThaddeusB, you beat me here. I'm having a busy day today. :) I can see both sides of the argument, I was the one who questioned it originally but I thought ThaddeusB had a good point. I had also suggested that prod-2 was the proper way to modify the prod, that's what I've always done. But at the same time I don't think there's any harm in modifying the original prod, especially if you indicate you're doing so in the edit summary. I was concerned that it might be seen as refactoring another person's comment, but since a prod isn't signed or in any way attributed to an editor except in the edit history of the page that's probably not the case. Could we mention it as an acceptable alternative when reviewing proposed deletions? --  At am a chat 18:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I right in thinking that the original PROD rationale is the one which shows up in the deletion log, not prod-2? If so, it seems more than reasonable to alter the original rationale to ensure the correct reasoning is shown to other users when they view the red-linked page at a later date. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 09:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. See here which was the prodded page that started this discussion. The person who originally proposed the deletion had stated that the dab page was populated solely by "non-notable" persons, and ThaddeusB had changed the prod rationale to say that they were "red linked" persons, which I agree is more accurate (the people on the dab page aren't necessarily non-notable just because they don't have articles). I added a prod-2 to the page, and you don't see that in the deletion log. With this in mind, I think that not only should it be allowed to fix a proposed deletion rationale that is incorrect, but it should be recommended that a person do so. An editor who did that, though, should probably leave a message on the talk page of the person who proposed the deletion to let them know that the proposed deletion rationale was changed, both to inform them that they made a mistake (for their own benefit) and to give them a change to respond if they disagreed. (In theory they should know, since a person who prods a page should be putting it on their watchlist, but not everyone will necessarily do that.) --  At am a chat 18:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unattributed statements may be modified unless something specifies otherwise (e.g. done in bad faith). The prod-2 template should not be used for this, since an editor may wish to correct the reason without actually endorsing the prod. If you want a wikilawyerish explanation of how this works here, this is essentially a removal of their prod tag (which anyone can do) and the addition of your own (which makes it clear that you were not contesting the prod). I agree that this should be added, though probably as a footnote.    M   00:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think pushing this into a footnote is a mistake, because once the article is deleted the only justification for deletion that is recorded is what was in that prod rationale. That could lead to someone recreating the article without being able to address the concerns that led to the original proposed deletion, because they would have no way of knowing what those concerns are. It seems important enough that there should be an explicit encouragement for changing the prod notice if an editor thinks that it is in error. --  At am a chat 04:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that this might be the best way to go, but then I thought, if we mention it directly, we might give the impression that someone is there going around cleaning up poor wordings for you. I'll add it to the deletion section instead, unless this really isn't a problem.    M   01:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Contesting already-deleted articles
I've been trying to clean this up (previous cleanup project: WP:POLICY), and am trying to avoid making any substantial changes. The following sentence:


 * Any deletion via this process which is taken to deletion review is implicitly a contested deletion, and the article may therefore be immediately restored by any administrator without discussion.

seems unclear. Are administrators encouraged to restore Prodded deletions (assuming they aren't busy, the person requesting isn't being rude, etc.), or is this something that may be done at the discretion of the admin?   M   00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Any and all articles deleted via PROD can be restored upon request. That doesn't mean they can't still be deleted via speedy or AfD.  The admin can try to tell the requester that it's a hopeless cause, but if they insist the article via be restored. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, to tag an article with a prod tag is saying "no one would ever object to this being deleted." Once someone objects, the article has to go through the normal deletion processes.  Proposed deletion is a shortcut to save the community the time & effort of an AfD and runs contrary to the general principle of "decision by consensus."  Thus it is as easy as possible to stop (or undo in this case).  Hope that clears it up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hope I addressed both of your points up with this edit.    M   00:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Before proposing an article for deletion
I've seen quite a few proposed deletions where it seemed that the proposer hadn't made any effort at sourcing; they were only considering the current state of the article. My suspicions were aroused because when I searched for sources the topics were plainly notable, with many reliable sources discussing them in depth; my suspicions were confirmed when I asked one editor about this and they said that "the articles didn't say how they were notable", as though that was a good reason for proposing deletion of an article on a notable topic. In the spirit of the essay WP:POTENTIAL and the guideline WP:BEFORE, which applies to WP:AFD, I'd like proposing an article for deletion to require that the nominator first makes efforts to source the page, recognising that notable subjects can begin as poor articles. Thoughts and potential wording welcome. Fences &  Windows  19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How? How can you require someone to make efforts to source the page?


 * I'm a proposed deletion patroller and I review hundreds of proposed deletions (to either support the deletion or oppose it), and each time I do I make at least a rudimentary check for sources. If I find something of significance I remove the tag. So I certainly support the spirit of your idea, and a lack of current sources should never be a valid deletion rationale, only a lack of available sources. But at the same time proposed deletions are for articles that are uncontroversial to delete. That literally means that nobody has expressed an opposition to their deletion; nobody cares if they stay. You can propose deletion on an article for any reason, or no reason at all; an article can literally have a prod tag with no rationale given and can potentially be deleted if nobody objects. Keep in mind that an admin makes the final decision over whether the article is deleted, so they might still reject the deletion proposal if they feel the article shouldn't go.


 * Again, going back to the main point... How would you require that a nominator search for sources? --  At am a chat 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is already implicit in Deletion that proposing an article for deletion is for "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." You're right that anyone can remove a prod template, and I do look through all prodded articles, about 3 or 4 days after they've been prodded. But it takes time and effort to try to source so many articles, and repeated unwarranted prod nominations by a single editor might fall under Disruptive editing. Giving a reminder of this could give some editors pause for thought. A start would be to make some reference on this page to trying to avoid deletion, and maybe attempting to define what an "uncontroversial deletion" looks like. We could also see if the wording at New pages patrol needs updating to calm down WP:Overzealous deletion. Fences  &  Windows  22:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it does take time and effort to source articles when you're trying to "rescue" them, it can be a real pain. I'm wondering if anyone would object to something on this page, under the "Prior to nomination" section. Perhaps if nothing else, a reference to Deletion. That way before someone goes half-cocked deleting stubs about notable subjects, they'd have a reminder about what should and shouldn't be deleted. --  At am a chat 22:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I added something to lead to emphasize this, but perhaps there's a way to state it more clearly in the steps (without making them grow). <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.2em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  M   01:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added links to the deletion policy on reasons for deletion and alternatives to deletion in the Before section. There was a change to make notifying page creators and significant editors of the prod the norm rather than an option - I like this, but wanted to flag it up as changes to policy processes do need discussion. I also added one see also link and a box to essays about inclusion/deletion, which seemed appropriate. Fences  &  Windows  22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong instructions
I just tried using prod as the page says to do. When I did and previewed it said that the template needs to be subst: Can someone change the instructions? I tried but couldn't get the format right. Thanks Smartse (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it. It looks correct now but still links to the prod template page thanks to piping. --  At am a chat 00:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

DeleteQueue
I've been spending some time recently overhauling the skeletal 'DeleteQueue' extension in SVN. As the name implies, this is a framework for allowing the software to keep track of, and largely automate the process of, deletion processes on a wiki. There isn't much documentation around at the moment (doesn't help that the extension currently doesn't work); I've tried to explain the work at User:Happy-melon/DeleteQueue. I am also keen to get input from the community here about what we'd like to see in a queued deletion system, to ensure that it has the maximum possible flexibility and utility here. So if you have any thoughts or comments on such an extension, please do drop me a note over at User talk:Happy-melon/DeleteQueue. Happy ‑ melon 16:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at User:Happy-melon/DeleteQueue. One of my biggest concerns with deletion is that there are wikipedia contributors who routinely ignore the recommendation that the nominator leave a good-faith heads-up on the talk-page ot the article/files uploader/creator's talk page.  Surprisingly, I have encountered several wikipedia administrators who routinely flout this recommendation.


 * Personally, I would be happy to see this changed from a recommendation to a requirement. Personally, I would be happy to see this lapse of courtesy come to be regarded as sufficient reason to dismiss the nomination.


 * I have never understood why the leaving of the heads-up wasn't automated. It wasn't clear to me from User:Happy-melon/DeleteQueue whether this automation would be part of the project.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Notifying the Creator of a proposed deletion
There seem to be some trigger-happy patrollers who put speedy tags on articles without notifying the creator. I cannot see any good reason why we don't make the notification mandatory - not all editors keep track of watchlists. NBeale (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All editors should. But regardless, what do you do if the author -isn't- notified?  --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if we make it clear as policy that it must happen then it will 99.9% of the time. If the creator is not notified but finds out afterwards this would be a good reason to undo the delete. NBeale (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can contest any PROD at any time, including after deletion. A page deleted via PROD will already be restored upon request, no questions asked. Therefore, notified or not a page creator wanting the page back is already a sufficient reason to restore it.
 * I don't think it should be policy that one has to notify the creator. It should be strongly encouraged, but not required. There are legitimate times when noifing the creator would simply be a waste of time.  For example, they if they are banned, a sock puppet, or left the project a long time ago, they won't be contesting the PROD under any circumstances. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept that there are exceptions but I still think the creator should be notified except in exceptional circumstances. So how about "Unless there are exceptional circumstances you should notify the article's creator that you have proposed an article for deletion, and it is considered courteous to notify other significant contributors. You can use ... for this. For your convenience, this line is generated at the end of the "prod" box after you have added it to the article. If you do not notify the creator you should explain why not on the article's talk page"NBeale (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I so agree that "Although not required, it is considered courteous to notify..." is far too soft. I would change it to "It is strongly suggested you notify..." or something stronger.  NBeale's suggestion doesn't seem direct enough to me.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK how about "You should notify the article's creator that you have proposed an article for deletion (unless there are exceptional circumstances), and ..." I don't think this is something that should be able to be ignored, as it often is I suspect. NBeale (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned part of this up. You don't need to add provisos, though I do wonder if the wording could be improved. "Editors are strongly encouraged" or "Editors must typically". This " If you do not notify the article's creator you should explain why." should be removed, it's definitely creepish. There's absolutely no need to preemptively explain yourself if you have a good reason, and if someone's really concerned, they can just go to your talk page and ask you. Actually, I'll remove it now. <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.2em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i> M   22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * M come on- consensus please - this is a Policy. Making a PROD without notifying the Creator is pretty aggressive - the creator may be totally unaware of the AfD debate until it is over. It should at least be noted and explained. I'm rolling this back but of course if there is a consensus we could make the change. NBeale (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My good sir,
 * Although not required, it is considered courteous to notify the article's creator and other significant contributors that you have proposed an article for deletion. You can use ... for this. For your convenience, this line is generated at the end of the "prod" box after you have added it to the article.
 * was the previous wording, so it's that by default until we establish consensus for requiring notification and explanation for failure :) I don't think we need to require it, and I think that there may be a bot somewhere around here that does this sort of notification automatically... Anyway, I'm guessing that you weren't aware that this was the actual previous wording, so I undid it, given that we're in the middle of discussing things here. <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.2em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  M   07:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well what we now have is not that - it is an improvement I admit but I wonder if it is going too far to ask the PROD to notify all the significant contributors? Anyway what do other people think? NBeale (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My first instinct as far as this thread is concerned is to consider that if "the Creator" is to be described with a capital C, then He/She is presumably omniscient and therefore already aware of the prod ;@).
 * More seriously, I think the entire prod process is fundamentally flawed by the voluntary nature of needing to notify or explain just about everything involved in it, even an action (removal of prod) which, unlike any other in Wikipedia, is irreversible. But this very lack of need to notify/explain is presented as the essence of prod as a distinct process.
 * On the one hand, I would think it unusual for any editor to create an article and yet value it so little that they do not keep it on their watchlist, and so the fact of non-notification should have little practical difference.
 * On the other hand, requests that a proper procedure should be followed mean very little to many editors if they are effectively carry the unstated rider "because it isn't really very nice if you don't". If placing a prod without informing the creator, or removing a prod without providing a reason, are against policy, there should be step-up-able warning templates about it, to alert other users to the habits of an editor or as something that can be borne in mind if an editor is the subject of a report to admins or other enquiry into his/her conduct.  Kevin McE (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's always been a pet-peeve of mine with proposed deletions. It irks me when a person puts a prod on an article and doesn't warn the creator or someone who has made dozens of edits in the article. It gives the impression that they're trying to subvert the process by sneaking in a deletion when nobody's looking. On the other hand, all it takes is a request to have a prodded article restored and it will be, or anyone can just recreate it without prejudice. So it's not the end of the world if an article is deleted in that manner. I almost wonder if a bot should automatically leave a notice on a creator's talk page when the article is deleted, or if the closing admin could do so, to give them a chance to have the article restored if they want. --  At am a chat 16:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Someone should file a PROD bot request and link it here so that people could support it. <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.2em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  M   22:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
Why/when was this page rewritten? I don't recall any discussion about it, so I'm a bit confused. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the discussion to the article was on this talk page, in the sections above. --  At am a chat 16:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * August 2nd (most was done then, for which I am responsible), with problems addressed (mostly with the original policy, not with the rewrite, I think) in the week afterward. The reason was serious redundancy (for example, this), and lack clarity. Went from 9.5k to 7.1k. There doesn't actually need to be discussion (though there was some) before non-substantial cleanup (or substantial cleanup, for that matter). If you find that an important point or clause vanished, and was missed in the post-cleanup discussions, please bring it up. <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.2em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  M   19:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why PROD doesn't apply to redirects
Someone tried to change the documentation to say PROD can be used for redirects. have have reverted this bold change with the following explanation for why it shouldn't apply:


 * 1) PROD is designed as a shortcut for AfD and redirects don't go through AfD
 * 2) Redirects are rarely watch listed and so no one will see the notice and know they might want to object
 * 3) The reasons for keeping a redirect are often non-obvious and the "no objection=deletion" method is inadequate for dealing with redirects
 * Specifically, nearly all redirects could be deleted under PROD's definition of "non-controversial" - namely that no one who sees it happens to object. However, sometimes a redirect exists for very important non-navigational reasons - i.e. to serve as the attribution history for a merge or even a transwiki move. It is unreasonable to expect casual editors who happen to come across a redirect on PROD to know these intricacies and dePROD.

--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To bolster what ThaddeusB has said, a proposed deletion is for articles only. It doesn't apply to any other kind of page in Wikipedia. Per WP:R, "A redirect is not an article, but it sends the reader to an article, usually from an alternative title." --  At am a  頭 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Previous discussion. As I said there, there's no reason PROD couldn't be used on redirects.  But it's not, and changing it would require discussion at the very least (I'm not for or against it per se, but I see no reason to prod redirects).  --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Files proposed for deletion
Since Proposed deletion currently indicates that "only articles, lists, and disambiguation pages" are subject to the PROD process, should Category:All files proposed for deletion exist at all? –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 04:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure! It's an easy way to find ineligible prod tags to remove. In fact I see 2 files in there to take care of. I'll go do that now. --  At am a  頭 05:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

ProD for obscure articles
I've recently come across two articles which were deleted via WP:PROD immediately after the minimum waiting period. They are the type of article which are very rarely visited or edited, and which had editors whom use Wikipedia rarely. Because of this none of the editors were aware of the proposed deletion, and only became aware some time after the deletion actually happened. I might add that these are the only articles I've seen where WP:PROD was applied, and feel that both were far, far too hasty. The articles were Piolet and St Radegund public house. In both cases the articles have been re-created by authors who obviously have no idea where their article went - not knowing it could be un-deleted. Deletion logs don't provide any information about the reason for the WP:PROD, so editors just re-create the article, as they don't know what they've done wrong.

It seems that WP:PROD is being used against its guidelines (in 100% of cases I've seen), since it is only for uncontestably deletable articles, and requires notification of editors (I didn't receive notification).

I would like to propose a few things:


 * Admins doing the deletion be required to check notifications of the last few editors.
 * Articles which only have a few edits a year should be given leeway in the form of much more time (since editors may not check messages)
 * Articles deleted under WP:PROD should be able to be restored instantly by non-admins into a discussion in WP:AFD, where they feel a discussion should have taken place.

Either: Or: Or:
 * When re-creating an article deleted under WP:PROD, the re-creation warning should include the reason for the deletion, the deletion log entry, and a link to request immediate un-deletion.
 * Make it mandatory for edit summaries for deletions under WP:PROD to contain the reason, and link for immediate un-deletion
 * Don't delete discussion for article, just change it to give details of the deletion.

Thoughts anyone?

--Ozhiker (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:REFUND exists for speedy undeletion of articles deleted via PROD. In the prods I've seen, the admin often includes the PROD rationale in their edit summary for the deletion; it could be good to make doing so mandatory. -- Cyber  cobra (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The original rationale for deletion is almost always included in the deletion log. This is because the prefilled deletion explanation is "Expired PROD, concern was: {reason}" where {reason} is the explanation given in the original prod template. The only reason it would be blank is if the original template had no reason or the admin used the drop down menu explanation which based says "listed on PROD for 7 days with no objections" rather than the pre-filled text.
 * Now sometimes this isn't very helpful because the regular who tagged it provided an alphabet soup explanation which means nothing to person who reads the log. Personally, I usually tack "Expired PROD - page can be restored upon request, but the requester should be willing to address the following concern:" in front of the deletion reason and change any alphabet soup / non-helpful rationales into plain English explanations when I delete an expired PROD.
 * The pre-filled text could be modified if you have a better idea for how it should read. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I just checked both those articles and they were deleted in 2008. I am pretty sure the change to the template that makes it pre-fill with the prod reason was more recent than either of those, which would explain why they didn't have more helpful reason given. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "It seems that WP:PROD is being used against its guidelines (in 100% of cases I've seen), since it is only for uncontestably deletable articles, and requires notification of editors (I didn't receive notification)." - That's actually not true. Proposed deletions aren't for "uncontestably deletable" articles. It's for articles that appear to be uncontroversial to delete. That means that nobody has expressed a wish for the article to not be deleted. That doesn't mean that there's no chance that anyone would possibly contest the deletion.


 * Requiring that an editor be notified is a mistake. What if the creator is indefinitely blocked, or hasn't edited Wikipedia in years? Also, how do you determine who is required to be notified? The guy who created the article 5 years ago, or the guy who has made 30 edits to the article, or the guy who updated it only the day before but only once? How extensive do the edits have to be before you say that the editor needs to be notified? Making notifications mandatory opens up a huge can of worms.


 * Since it is easy to get an article restored I don't think these drastic changes to policy are necessary. If anyone wants the article restored after a prod it is restored with no questions asked. I'm sorry that you ran across a handful of proposed deletions that shouldn't have happened, but the overwhelming majority of the time the articles that get deleted should have been. There's no need for drastic fixes to a system that already works. --  At am a  頭 02:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All articles deleted via prod can be restored immediately upon request from any admin or from Requests for undeletion. Most of the time editors (or at least, page creators) are notified of a prod (automatically for prods placed via semi-automated tools) and the editor has 7 days to merely remove the template or otherwise indicate that s/he objects to the prod.  Mandating that editors notify all contributors has been discussed before and rejected multiple times. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And to be honest, they have as much time as they need to contest it. It can be restored after deletion.  And I've never seen an expired PROD that wasn't noted as such in the deletion log.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The point I was trying to get at was that the editors who created and re-created these articles are not familiar enough with Wikipedia to realise that using the details in the log, they could have the article undeleted, and so had to come up with new material. I think it should be much more obvious that articles can be undeleted.

The edit summaries gave no reasons for the articles were :
 * deleted "Piolet" ‎ (Category:Proposed deletion as of 24 December 2008)
 * deleted "St Radegund public house" ‎ (Prod left uncontested for five days.)

I'm sure there's many useful articles that get less than one hit per week, hence they would be deleted with WP:PROD without anyone ever seeing it.

BTW: "uncontestably deletable" is the wording used in the lead for this guideline, and I can't think of too many situations where an article doesn't fit WP:SD, and where the article's creators wouldn't want a deletion discussion. --Ozhiker (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen a lot of irredeemable articles deleted via prods so it's certainly far from 100% inappropriate. I've also let some possibly borderline articles slip by, because I don't think they have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a deletion discussion even with all the combined source finding skills of the Article Rescue Squadron. I always prod via Twinkle so I automatically alert the article creator, and it gives a clear edit summary too. I can understand not alerting the article creator, but I'd encourage doing it. I think the best solution to inappropriate deletions by prod is to get more experienced and level-headed editors who are neither deletionists nor inclusionists to join the prod patrol. Fences  &  Windows  15:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never noticed the "uncontestably deletable" language, thanks for pointing that out. That should probably be changed, in my opinion. But yes, there are TONS of articles that get deleted through the proposed deletion system where (A) they don't match anything at CSD, (B) the author and/or major contributor(s) were notified of the proposed deletion tag at the time that the tag was placed and (C) they don't contest it. When I do proposed deletion patrolling, I go out of my way to be certain that the deletion isn't being contested. I check the history of the article to see if the tag was removed and replaced, I check the talk page to see if anyone has asked that the page be saved, I even go to the author's user talk page to see if they replied to the notification and requested it not be deleted. If I see any evidence that anyone doesn't want it deleted, I remove the tag and say that the deletion is controversial. But often there's nothing there.


 * I do see where you're coming from, where the deletion log isn't helpful for someone who wants the article recreated and isn't familiar with Wikipedia or at least the proposed deletion process. There should be some language explaning that the article can be restored upon request, and it would be even better if there was a link to a page showing how to do so. --  At am a  頭 16:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Requiring that an editor be notified is never a mistake except for a known  vandal. It should certainly be required to notify; it should be built into the system. Even if the editor has been away for a long time, it never hurts to notify--he might still be using wikipedia to read articles, and the "your user talk page has been modified" message will appear. If the user is blocked, it will still show up to anyone who has that page watchlisted--most blocked eds. have their talk p. watchlisted by the admin who blocked them.   At present, notiifying is at least built into Twinkle. Not notifying is drastically unfair--to my mind, it amounts to trying to sneak a deletion past those who might be able to fix the article--or at least can look that way..
 * But recently, there has been much more effective patrolling of prods--in addition to the admins checking at the end of the 7 days, some of us (such as myself) check the new ones daily. (I check those that I might possibly know something about--I neither check nor delete topics where I know I am incompetent to recognize something that might actually be notable).  DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've suggested before on this page that the article's author should be automatically notified about an article's deletion when it is deleted via prod. I think that would be appropriate whether or not they were already previously notified when the prod was first applied. --  At am a  頭 17:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into the whole author runaround bit but here goes: 1) No one owns the articles, 2) Most authors are notified anyway when people prod w/ semi-automated tools, 3) Arguing that failure to notify signals an attempt to sneak a deletion by someone appears to not assume much good faith about the prodder, and 4) Once we can get a reliable automatic system which can pick substantive editors from drive by editors in an article even w/ short histories, then we can talk about building notification into the system. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Deprodding for being "overtagged"
I prodded an article and it was deprodded as "overtagged". Another editor had tagged it with about 8 tags and I'd subsequently come across it as a related article had been prodded, so my prod had nothing to do with the tags. I asked the deprodder about this and they said they dislike overtagging and their intention in removing the tag was to teach the tagger a lesson, and that as they considered the tags part of the deletion process the prod was therefore flawed - they thought I should have removed the tags first. They said they will always do this if a prodded article is "overtagged". I believe that this is illogical and is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I realise that a prod can be removed for any reason, but editors have been blocked for deprodding sprees, and I believe this falls into a similar pattern of behaviour. Thoughts? Fences &  Windows  18:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A prod tag can be restored if the removal wasn't done in good faith. Basically, the removal of the prod tag is seen as contesting the prod and any rejection of the proposed deletion makes the deletion controversial, and thus ineligible for proposed deletion (that's why you normally can't put it back). In this case, the person who removed the tag explicitly stated that he wasn't rejecting the proposed deletion itself, only having a tag. So it's clear that the deletion is still uncontested, and it should be possible to restore the prod tag. If you do restore it, be very explicit in the edit summary that the prod tag was not removed in good faith (I would link to where the editor explained about "overtagging".) --  At am a  頭 21:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's gone to AfD, so this one's fine for now, I just wanted to clarify the principle of it. Fences  &  Windows  23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of disambiguation pages
This article was edited to explicitly include allowing a prod on a dab, and that edit was reverted because no consensus for such an action has been reached on this talk page. So I thought it would be a good idea to bring it up so that perhaps a conclusion can be reached.

I feel that dab pages should be deleted through a prod because there are times that it is very obvious that they should be deleted. Most dab pages that are listed for a prod clearly should be deleted. When I do my prod patrolling I usually won't even add a prod-2 tag because it would be redundant to do so. Generally there are 2 situations when a dab page should be deleted; if there are fewer than 2 articles being blue-linked on the page or when there is already a "primary+hatnote" dab link established with 2 articles. For example, I've seen dab pages for a name like "Steve Reynolds" with 3 redlinks to different people named Steve Reynolds; there is no need for a dab page like that to exist.

Another reason for allowing a prod on a dab page is that the only alternative to a prod is AfD. I haven't seen a dab page that fits any criteria at WP:CSD (though it's not a bad idea to have a CSD option specifically for dab pages) and there is no "Disambiguation for Deletion" process. So by denying an editor the ability to prod a dab you force him to go through all of the steps of a dab. That's just an unnecessary hassle for dab pages that are clearly not needed.

The last reason for allowing it is that it's done all the time in practice. Admins don't have a problem deleting such pages. It works. Why break something that works?

Now, I know of only one reason to not allow dab pages to be prodded. They generally aren't watchlisted because they're mostly static. It's unlikely that an author of a dab page is going to keep an eye on it because they generally don't change. So it's possible for a dab page to be deleted when the author would have opposed the deletion if he'd only known it was proposed; as we know there's no requirement to notify editors when an article is prodded (though of course you should notify someone most of the time).

So, does anyone else have objections to explicitly including dab pages in this policy? --  At am a  頭 19:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything above, and would like to add that PROD is for articles and dab pages are considered articles for XfD purposes. If they weren't they would go to MfD or RfD, not AfD.  Deleting an orphaned dab page with 2 entries is about as uncontroversial as it gets.
 * This issue has come up before and while participation was never broad in the sense of a a lot of editors participating, the general sense was always that prod should be allowed on dabs. (Don't have time to find the archives at the moment). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objections, and in fact it'd be nice to see it spelled out. Disambigs are usually treated as articles for most deletion purposes anyways.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with Atama's assessment and would further add that I see fewer problems with using PROD for disambiguation pages than any other type of page. Unlike articles—the merits of which can be debated endlessly—disambiguation pages are navigational/organizational tools only; if they do not serve their intended functions (e.g. a dab page with no bluelinks) or if their existence is unneeded (e.g. a dab page with only one bluelink), then I see little reason to require an AfD. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 22:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I was the editor who got reverted, obviously I agree with the inclusion of dabs for prodding. I'd like to point out that later in the page disambiguation pages are already listed as eligible. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And reverts giving only "no consensus for this change" as a reason for reverting should just be ignored and reverted. <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.2em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  M   00:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the premise of letting disambigs be prodded, but if these cases are so straightforward, is there a reason not to establish a CSD instead? (e.g. CSD D1: Disambiguation page with less than 3 entries or terms) -- Cyber  cobra (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason at all. Db-disambig exists as a case of G6, but unfortunately has been restricted not to the obvious uses (less than three entries for a title with a primary topic), but to the more restrictive "less that two". But it does exist; I'd welcome any support in making it reflect actual disambiguation utility. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only (minor) issue is that sometimes dabs of two are serving a purpose - that is, they are being used to link to two subjects instead of the superior hat note only method. They are never needed, but sometimes they are being used and thus editing is required before deletion should occur. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. If there are two ambiguous articles and one is the primary topic, the other should be linked in a hatnote and no dab page is needed. If there are two ambiguous articles and neither is a primary topic, a dab page is required, placed at the base name (no "(disambiguation)" in the title), and each article gets an unambiguous title instead -- those base-name dabs would be un-delete-able by CSD, Prod, or other mechanism -- they're required for navigation, and an article would have to be made primary to change that. For a dab with a primary topic, two articles is too few, three can be handled either with hatnotes (two other uses) or with a dab, and four or more require a dab. If I've missed the case you're talking about, let me know. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This dab, for example, is a two-entry disambiguation page that would be needed. Neither article is really "primary" for that entry.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That page doesn't have "(disambiguation)" in its title. -- Cyber  cobra (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page only needs to have "disambiguation" in the title to differentiate it from an article with the same name. For example, Cross and Cross (disambiguation). All any dab really needs is a footer identifying it as a dab (and you'll see that footer in Klonoa 2). --  At am a  頭 06:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what I mean is that if you read JHunterJ, they agree such pages should be specially excluded from deletion under such a rule. -- Cyber  cobra  (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Disambiguation pages with no primary topic (= those at the base name = those without "(disambiguation)" in the title) would only be deleted if they had no Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, first one of the articles would need to become the primary topic (moved to the base name) and the dab moved to the name + (disambiguation) before the dab could be considered for deletion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion started at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion Wow, that template isn't even linked to on WP:CSD. Propose we bring up tweaking its language on the CSD talkpage? -- Cyber  cobra (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there is now a proposal on village pump to reclassify dabs as types of redirects and remove them from the scope of PROD. See this discussion--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs
help. The article List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs is a pointless and stupid article. This list is just a list of films that have failed in comparison to the budget in the DOMESTIC market(US and Canada). US FILMS are made for and with the INTERNATIONAL MARKET in mind. Frequently films do not break even just by the US market, but subsequently break even, and then make profit as they get distributed throughout the world. Its like having a list of musicians who have failed in the domestic market. This article is completely pointless, because films are sold throughout the world and the goal is to make a profit after international release. Thus this article merely says what films failed in the US market, when the budget of these films are budgeted with all markets in mind. I see no point to this article what so ever, i am not contesting the research of this article to which previous people have nominated it up for deletion for, but the mere irrelevance and unnotability of the article. Can someone please help me with nominated this article for deletion.

This article is like saying that the 3rd pirates of Caribbean film only just managed to avoid being a failure in the domestic market, because it costed 300 million, and only made back 309 million in the US/CANADA(domestic market), thus the film only just managed to succeed. NO. WRONG!!!!!! The film did amazingly well in the domestic market. AMAZINGLY WELL. IT BEAT THE BUDGET AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONEY HASN'T EVEN BEEN COUNTED!!!!!!!! thats an amazing feat. once international money is counted in, 960 million dollars total gross of the film.. Hence, I hope you can now see that the film didn't 'just succeed' in the us domestic market, but actually did really well, because the studio new it would make money overseas, and budgeted the film accordingly. This article just takes a stupid 'USA is the entire world' view.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the article has already gone through 2 deletion discussions, you can't use proposed deletion; you must instead nominate it for discussion at Articles for deletion. See WP:AFDHOWTO for how to do this, although since it's survived twice, it's probably unlikely to be deleted, but you can certainly try. Also, this isn't really the correct place for you to have asked your question. -- Cyber  cobra  (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it has been 2 years since the last AfD discussion for that article so it's not inappropriate to open a new discussion now. But yes, this isn't even close to the correct place to discuss this issue. The article has a talk page for a reason. --  At am a  頭 15:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification
I don't know where the notion that the process of nominating for deletion using this method included notifying the owner came from or when it was added. This certainly doesn't fit with the "cheap and cheerful" principle and I definitely haven't ever done so though I was around when Radiant first proposed this deletion method. I've removed that step from the description of the nomination process. This process should be as hassle-free and simple as we can make it. --TS 22:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is generally considered a common courtesy. It also seems sensible in that the original author is most likely to have some vision of the potential or scope of the article and whether he intends to persist with it.  Such notification is made automatically when using tools such as Twinkle and so it is no chore.  I have therefore restored the step. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's only considered to be courtesy then it should not be in the list of steps in this policy. In particular, this method was conceived originally to be lightweight.  Having to put a note on somebody's talk page just because they happened to make the first edit on an article isn't lightweight.  It just isn't on to assume that editors will use a tool such as Twinkle.  I suggest that the wording be modified to ensure that the reader of this policy understands that it isn't a mandatory step.  This looks like a straightforward case of instruction creep. --TS 22:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be strongly recommended to notify the creator of the page (except in cases of clear vandalism, spambots, etc..). I think it keeps everything more transparent and helps prevent "sneaky deletions". I don't think it is that hard to notify the creator, and like said above, some tools even do that almost automatically --SF007 (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Notification should be strongly encouraged. "Lightweight" is in comparison to WP:AFD, and this process certainly is. Once you've determined that a proposed deletion is appropriate (however you come to that conclusion) and conceive a good justification for the deletion, it's really just a 2 step process. Put the subst:prod tag on the article with the justification, then leave a notice for the creator and/or significant contributors. You should have already gone through the article history to look for prior proposed deletions/AfDs to see if a prod is allowed, so you'd already have an idea of who the contributors are. While the process should be "hassle-free and simple", it's also important that it is done correctly. I find it a bit funny that you say the person just "happened to make the first edit on an article". They didn't make the "first edit", they created the article. In all likelihood they were the ones who made the decision that such an article should exist in the first place, so of course it's also likely that if anyone might object to the deletion, they might. --  At am a  頭 23:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the earlier revisions of this policy and until very recently, and almost since it was created, it explicitly said that notification was not necessary, although considered a courtesy. The change seems to have happened some time in August, during which this policy was extensively edited.

Looking up the page, I see that it was discussed at the time, and some editors actually thought it would be a good idea to change the policy to require notification. This is unacceptable, and certainly is not current practice nor has it ever been. The notion of a small number of editors altering the written policy in the hope that they will be able to change the way things are done is of course absurd. The wording should probably be changed back so as not to put this unnecessary onus on people new to this policy. Those of us who have always used the policy as a lightweight process will of course continue to use it as we see fit. --TS 23:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking again it does appear that there was considerable division about whether to change this policy to require notifications, but the text was changed anyway. I strongly recommend that we change it back. --TS 23:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm w/ Col. Warden here. The threshold for PROD is that no one, including the "author" (scare quotes deliberate here) cares that the page remains and that it presumably fails some guideline/policy for inclusion (thus the prod reason). Our policy should strongly encourage that "authors" be notified. I will also say that all semi-automated tools (to the best of my knowledge) notify the page creator by default, so most prodding isn't materially affected by this admonition. I will also state that while I feel the policy should encourage notification I am opposed to mandating it (mostly out of overhead concerns). Protonk (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the overhead concerns. I'm really surprised to find so many people talking about automated tools.  What proportion of Wikipedians even use them?  The intention of this policy was to reduce the overheads involved in deleting articles that weren't speediable but probably would not survive afd. The harder we make it, the less it will be used. --TS 00:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the fraction of wikipedians using automated tools is much smaller than the fraction of wikipedians who watch new pages and recent changes and use automated tools. In 'automated tools' I'm including browser scripts like friendly and twinkle as well as thinkgs more oviously recognizable as tools like NPWatcher and Huggle.  the idea in notifying page creators is that new users don't use the watchlist/page history/contributions tab like long time users (this is both from my experience w/ new users, watching my family edit and some data are added to those anecdotes from the usability studies) so the best bet to get the attention of a new user (assuming they log on in 7 days) is to send them a message letting them know that their article has been prodded.  Our threshold is "no one cares" not "no one who has the page watchlisted or returns to check on it cares".  I understand the function of PROD and I deeply appreciate holding overhead down (also, mandating notification has admin overhead too, I would have to check for notification when processing the dated prod queue), but we do owe notification to new users. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly suggesting notification is completely appropriate and should remain in the policy. As noted, the whole point of PROD is to say "no one would reasonably want to keep this."   Trying to sneak it past the article's creator is a bad idea.  PROD already has a reputation for being "sneaky deletion"; we don't need to be expanding that reputation.
 * In response to your question "What proportion of Wikipedians even use [automated tools]?" The answer is very few overall, but a very large chunk of those who regularly nominate articles for deletion. (Not that it actually matter to tthe argument here.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PROD already has a reputation for being "sneaky deletion". No it doesn't.  It's the deletion I can perform without engaging in excessive bureaucracy.  This is a wiki, not a bulletin board.  --TS 00:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe my statement to be true, then you probably aren't reading many Wikipedia space conversations (which is probably a good thing). I didn't say it was sneaky I said it had a reputation for being sneaky, which is certainly true. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So don't notify people then. Protonk (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My reason for starting this discussion is an apparent move to change the policy to make notification mandatory. The written version of this policy has recently been changed to omit the statement that notification is not necessary, and to include as step 4 the notification of the owner.  See also my suggestion of 23:06, 15 September 2009 (above).  The change in policy has harmed it, in my opinion. --TS 01:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm of the complete opposite opinion as TS. I believe that while it is wrong to mandate notification, because there are situations in which it isn't appropriate, and because nobody can objectively say exactly which editors need to be notified, proposed deletions without any notification should be the exceptions and in the vast majority of proposed deletions you should at the very least inform the creator of the article.


 * On the other hand, it's not the intention of the policy to require notification for a proposed deletion to be valid. I don't believe that anyone has argued that it is or has ever been. Yet reading the policy now, it very clearly implies that you must provide notification to editors. That's not correct. The policy should be changed along the lines of saying "it is strongly encouraged" or "you should consider" notification. The policy as written now demands the notification. In this, TS is absolutely correct. --  At am a  頭 01:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is a convergence of views here, to the extent that I can agree with a strong recommendation to consider informing the article creator, as long as this recommendation does not (as it now seems to do) amount to an instruction. --TS 01:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree w/ that. Sorry for my comment above.  I was under the impression that the policy didn't previously make notification mandatory. Protonk (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As a gambit to be considered in the sense of being bold, I've made an alteration to the written policy that would meet my approval. Please alter or revert. --TS 01:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've similarly amended the instruction to notify the person who prodded the article when you deprod an article, for exactly the same reasons. Hiding T 13:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And for the record, while PROD may have a reputation as being "sneaky deletion", it is completely unwarranted, because any article deleted by PROD should be restored as soon as someone objects. The only reason not to restore is if the article happens to also meet a speedy deletion criteria. Hiding T 13:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also for the record, I agree that it isn't sneaky and is a good process to have. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Our opinions about PROD or the ease of contesting a prod doesn't have a lick of impact on the reputation, BTW. Plenty of things have reputations which are totally unwarranted.  The correct response isn't just to assert how irrational those reputations are but to take active steps to combat that reputation (where those steps don't disrupt the process unreasonably). Protonk (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What to do now
I have jsut marked a page with the propose deletion tag what do i need ot do now do i need ot add anything here or so on or is it all automatic? do i ned to inform the user who created the apge?-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as you used subst, you can now forget about it. The process is automatic. --TS 23:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One mistake you made was to not put anything in the edit summary. In general, editing an article without an edit summary is discouraged but it's particularly important when you are proposing the deletion of an article. If the deletion is contested and the article doesn't get deleted, then if someone in the future wants to propose the article for deletion they would typically look through the history of the article to see if it has been proposed for deletion in the past, because if an article is given a prod tag and the tag is removed then the article cannot have a prod tag added again at a later date. Without an edit summary it's difficult to see that the article was proposed for deletion, and makes it more likely that someone would inappropriately propose it for deletion again.


 * Also, it's best to at least let the article creator know you want to delete the article. I see that you've actually been talking with the creator about related articles so it would be especially courteous to do so.


 * As TS stated, however, there's really nothing else you truly need to do, if the deletion isn't opposed within a week then an administrator will double-check the article and decide whether they agree with you that it should be deleted, and if so it will be deleted. I'd suggest that if you haven't done so that you watch the page, so that if the deletion is opposed you can try another avenue for deletion (such as WP:AFD) if you still think it should be removed from the encyclopedia. --  At am a  頭 23:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (Addressing first part of the above). Yes, that's an interesting question. Of course the whole point of PROD is that deletion is in the end at the discretion of the deleting admin.  I think an absence of any readable deletion reason would be interpreted by any admin as an invalid PROD, but he might still make a judgement and carry out the deletion on his own cognizance.  As with any PROD, the deleting admin bears the ultimate responsibility for the decision, and that does imply discretion. -TS 01:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A proposed edit to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion
I want to have a sentence within Objecting changed from
 * this → This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking.
 * to this → This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as a conversion to redirect.

in order to avoid confusion and to prevent the appearance of empty pages. -- allen四names 20:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would oppose that change because it's simply not accurate. If I were to tag an article for deletion, and someone else turned the page into a redirect, then I would assume that they are objecting to deletion. Deletion is different from a redirect, as is evident in many AfD discussions where people suggest a merge and/or redirect instead of deletion. Per WP:RCAT there are many uses for redirects, and keeping an article as a redirect means that it has value in the encyclopedia. Deletion is a way of saying there is no value in maintaining the article, it doesn't even serve a valid purpose as a search term for a different subject.


 * On the other hand, the example we have now in the policy is page blanking. When someone blanks a page purposefully, they are signaling that the article should be deleted. Blanking the page has the effect of removing the tag, but it's clearly not an opposition to deletion, if anything it's a clumsy endorsement. See Template:db-author, where the CSD template states that if the author has blanked the page that it can be considered a request to delete the article.


 * Perhaps you should explain your reason for this proposed change a bit further, I may be misunderstanding your intent here. --  At am a  頭 22:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the deletion log (09:32 23 Sep 2009). Page blanking can be construed as vandalism. User:Youngamerican converted Zack Ryders to a redirect with R to Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder in the edit summary. I then added to the talk page and posted a message about it on Youngamerican's talk page. Can you think of any alternative. -- allen四names 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Page blanking can be construed as vandalism." - Yes, which is another reason why page blanking should not be considered an objection to the deletion proposal. If a prod tag is removed in the course of vandalism, that isn't considered a valid opposition to the deletion and the tag can be restored.


 * I just looked on your user talk page where Youngamerican says, "I merely redirected the article to a better target. Nothing about that should imply that I contested the prod. If anything, what I did was to "speedy redirect" the page as a plausible search typo." However, Youngamerican is incorrect. They did, in fact, contest the prod. If they hadn't contested it then the article would still have a proposed deletion tag on it. I've left a message at their user talk page asking them to comment if they disagree. --  At am a  頭 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that the change I proposed is unnecessary. I will leave it to Youngamerican to replace the oldprodful template. Thank you. -- allen四names 23:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I see my actions as speedily redirecting a useless article that happens to have a prod tag rather than objecting to the deletion of an article via prod and then creating a redirect. It'd be similar to my choosing to speedy delete an article with a prod template (which I've done in the past). If community consensus disagrees with this interpretation, I'll make an effort to be less roguish in my prod redirects (ie I'll try to remember to add that talk page template).  young  american  (wtf?) 23:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while I feel I'm acting in the spirit of "prod," I'd oppose changing the letter.  young  american  (wtf?) 23:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

delete
FRED:The Movie, can we speedy delete this? do i even have to say why?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is isn't the place to discuss this matter. The proper place would be the article's talk page. However I'm not sure which criteria at WP:CSD this would fall under, A7 and A9 don't apply because it is neither a web site, person, or organization, nor is it a musical recording. I've proposed the article for deletion. --  At am a  頭 15:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Village pump discussion
An editor has proposed getting rid of the PROD process here. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's at WP:Village Pump (proposals). --  At am a  頭 21:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, I just spotted my typo. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Will all the other (religion) and politics pages be deleted as well?

There is a case for a 'minimalist page with redirections' at least (listing political theorists, religious comentators etc) (and transferring the pages to Wikinfo). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

List of pages deleted by PROD?
Is there such a list? If there's not, it seems like there should be. Шизомби (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but a check of the deletion log will show those where the closing admin put "PROD" in the remarks. If you just want to see if a given article was PRODded away, open the red-link article, you will see its deletion log, or check Special:Log directly.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Who would be able to add a feature to the deletion log page or to WP:Searching that would filter by edit summary content? Шизомби (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

When if ever is PROD for redirects?
According to the first sentence of this article, "Proposed deletion may be used on articles proper, on disambiguation pages and on main-namespace redirects (hereafter referred to collectively as "articles")." Yet paragraph Nominating#Before nomination (4) declares, "Note that only articles, lists, and disambiguation pages may be deleted using the Proposed deletion process. [FN1: Deletion of other pages, including redirects, should be proposed at the appropriate deletion page or tagged for speedy deletion, if applicable.]" (emphasis added). What's the resolution?  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a change made to the policy, unilaterally, just a few days ago. It is inconsistent with previous discussions (see Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 9 and the even older discussion referenced there as well). Such a dramatic change should not have been made to the policy by just one editor without any previous discussion, and I've reverted it. Thanks for pointing this out, I had missed this inappropriate policy change over the holidays. --  At am a  頭 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, thanks!  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 05:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A Simple Solution for De-Prodding
Hey Guys, I was hoping to get edit filter 200 flipped on. This filter lists edits that remove PROD templates. I think, by turning this on, there is an up-to-date place where PRODders can look to review PROD removals. That way, if someone removes a PROD template for an in-adequate reason, we can pursue further action (such as AFD). In any case, it is a seemingly easy solution. If you want to oppose or support this article, please see Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. Thanks, Tim1357 (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: no de-PROD-ing without a rationale
I would like to propose that when de-PROD-ing an article, the PROD tag can be replaced unless its deletion was accompanied in reasonable succession by either:
 * 1) An edit-summary comment, note on the article talkpage or note on the PROD-er's talkpage with some attempt to justify the de-PROD-ing. It wouldn't need to be anything much, or anything superb, just something to demonstrate that the removal is not simply disruptive. Or—
 * 2) Editing the article itself, again, nothing special; perhaps adding references, something to sort out the PROD-er's concern.

This would not place an unreasonable burden on anyone – in fact, it is already encouraged by the policy-page. But I think it should be mandated: de-PROD-ing like this for example, is borderline-incivil, very unhelpful, and a complete waste of everybody's time (the nominator feels inclined to immediately to to AfD, whereas if they understood the rationale they might have agreed). That diff happened to have been done by an experienced contributor; IPs and article creators are also frequently guilty of this sort of thing.

Any thoughts? ╟─TreasuryTag► UK EYES ONLY ─╢ 08:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Use talk pages to sort out your differences with the person who removed the prod. It's certainly good form to offer a rationale when reverting someone, although the rationale doesn't have to be anything more than "I disagree".


 * I note that you sent the article in question almost immediately to AfD without attempting to engage the person who removed the prod on either his talk page or the article talk page. (You did criticize him on his talk page immediately after starting the AfD.)


 * If you really want to be convinced to not delete an article, you have to engage the person who is disagreeing with you. Frankly, all I see here is an attempt to address a perceived slight from several months ago through instruction creep.--Father Goose (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a perceived slight from months ago; that was the example freshest in my memory, I could list you ten or twenty others. The point is, if the de-PROD-er does one the rank discourtesy of leaving a snide edit-summary and no rationale, where's the incentive to engage them in discussion? They're obviously not interested in discussion otherwise they'd have listed a rationale.
 * I don't see the instruction creep, I see a proposal to encourage courtesy and not just unexplained dissent. ╟─TreasuryTag► stannary parliament ─╢ 09:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ultimately this propsal goes against the purpose of the prod process. Articles deleted under prod is deleted because no one objects.  So the only reason that needs to be given is "I don't think this article should be deleted without discussion", which can be taken as an implied statement in the removal of the tag.  So the current recomendation of providing a rationale is about the strongest we should have.  We might note that providing a rationale might preempt a latter AfD nomination. Taemyr (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the purpose of the prod process (beautiful alliteration there...), but consider that the only reason an editor could possibly have not to provide a rationale would be an intention of being disruptive or rude. And if there's no valid reason not to do something (those reasons aren't valid, of course!) then I see no problem with requiring it. ╟─TreasuryTag► co-prince ─╢ 09:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there any chance you could put yourself in his shoes and understand why he acted the way he did? Don't just say "he wanted to be rude"; contemplate why he might have done what he did -- how he could possibly have done what he did without any malice or intended slight.--Father Goose (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have put myself in his shoes insofar as it's physically possible to do so. I cannot come up with any legitimate reason for him not to provide a rationale (I know he can type and speak English, he was clearly able to leave an edit-summary). I'm not suggesting "malice" in this case, though; just rudeness. ╟─TreasuryTag► sundries ─╢ 10:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to try to imagine what he was thinking, then, bearing in mind that this is all speculation -- though hopefully plausible speculation.
 * "This guy comes along and tries to delete an article I think is an asset to the encyclopedia. We've had disputes in the past over similar issues, and we've rarely if ever managed to see eye-to-eye on them.  I don't see that I have any hope of convincing him this time, either, so I'm not going to bother to say the obvious -- 'I disagree' or 'your reasons are not compelling to me' -- as those responses can give just as much offense as any other.  [FG's note: I was recently reverted with exactly those words, 'I disagree', and it was aggravating, because there's no rebuttal possible.]  I don't want to leave no edit summary, though, so I at least describe what I'm doing physically: removing tags.  In retrospect, perhaps I could have said 'removing PROD', though that would be just as lacking a rationale as the other.
 * "Was any of that rudeness on my part? We had a point of disagreement that was unlikely to be resolved through words, so I offered no words.  You turned around and did exactly the same thing, by going straight to AfD instead of making a more concerted effort to solicit my views or try to convince me directly."
 * Who wronged who in this case? Nobody, I am inclined to think.--Father Goose (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your scenario doesn't convince me that failure to provide a rationale is anything but extremely discourteous at best. It's not a narrative issue here (what was he thinking etc.), it's a "moral" one – what constitutes rudeness? And I think that this does. ╟─TreasuryTag► directorate ─╢ 11:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then that would be a behavioural issue and should not have any effect on procedure. If a PROD tag is removed then it is implicitly disagreed with. A PROD tag is for cases where there is no disagreement, to save time at AfD. Therefore if a PROD tag is removed you should take it to AfD rather than re-adding the tag. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I too have seen some curt and dismissive edit summaries on prod removal; "false" and "rebut" come to mind. I agree with TreasuryTag that it would be nice if the deprodder provided their rationale but don't think it would work as a requirement–deprodding does inherently mean that there is someone who disagrees with deletion. pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 12:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think OrangeDog has it, here - PROD is very specifically for circumstances where a deletion is noncontroversial, either because no one disagrees, no one can be arsed to fix the article, or no one can dispute the subject's lack of notability, etc. If someone removes the tag, yes they should say "Subject is notable because of X, Y, Z, etc", but the fact that they disagree enough to remove the PROD is sufficient. It then needs to go to AFD. I would like to see a notice of the AFD sent both to the article's author and the PROD remover, if possible, as I see lots of AFDs for articles where the rationale is "Removed PROD", and discussion with whomever removed the PROD might be of value - but that's a separate issue. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to this- strongly. Someone who edits the article to remove the prod is saying "I object"- whether they use an edit summary, take it to the talk page, the user talk page of the prodder, or just remove the tag.  Instruction creep is a bad thing- never mind that civility cannot be legislated by any means; making prods restorable under certain circumstances will be taken as an invitation to revert war. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose as written but I would support a policy to always leave an edit summary when adding or removing a deletion tag of any sort, including prod. It's already required for adding, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be here also. But we process the deletion requests even if they are not formulated right, and the se cases also. I try to always leave a summary in removing prod or speedy tags to give some   indication of what I had in mind.    It's just like using edit summaries in general--sI admit I sometimes forget these, but I hope I wouldn't here. ( Perhaps I will propose this separately, not in the context of a single particular article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)


 * I agree with DGG on both points. If anyone objects with anything but pure vandalism, the prod tag is no longer valid. I also think that removing a deletion tag (either speedy or prod) should be accompanied by a rationale, but in the case of proposed deletions it certainly doesn't have to be. Removing the tag means you disagree, and that's all that's needed to protest the prod. Heck, that's more than what's needed, all that an article needs is reasonable evidence that the deletion is either contested or controversial. I decline proposed deletions if I see a hangon tag (which shouldn't be used for prods), or a person declares on the talk page that they don't want the article deleted, or even their own talk page (sometimes people do that in reply to a notice or template that the article they created is proposed for deletion). The only time that I restore a proposed deletion tag that's removed is if I was the one who removed it and I realize that I made a mistake (for example, I Google the person and think I find notability examples, then realize that it's a different person) or if the tag was removed by a vandal (let's say they remove 20 prod tags from articles without an explanation just before an indef block, I've actually seen that happen). Proposed deletions are supposed to be non-controversial and easy to carry out, that's why the process exists.


 * I suppose there's another, more important reason to oppose this change to the policy. Basically, if we require a reasonable objection be stated in the removal of the proposed deletion tag, aren't we now saying that some sort of a discussion is required? Doesn't that go against the whole reason for having proposed deletions in the first place? If all deletions that aren't speedy candidates require discussion, then they should go through the AfD process. --  At am a  頭 02:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose as written. I believe this is a solution in search of a problem. When an article is deprodded without a rationale, it usually ends up at AfD, where sometimes articles are deleted prematurely on WP:SNOW grounds. For cases of bad-faith mass-removal of prod tags, WP:IAR is an insurance policy that can always be invoked, and I haven't seen it happen often enough that we need anything else. A wikilawyer could always write "yaeyremfjc,,v" as a deprodding rationale. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 03:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose because the current wording already asks for an explanation, and I don't see how we can enforce someone to give an explanation. What happens if there is no explanation for removing the Prod? The reasonable response is to take it to AfD - which is what happens anyway - any other action, such as replacing the Prod would be inappropriate and lead to potential conflict, extra work for the admin looking at the Prod to consider if it can be deleted, and more DRVs when the person who de-Prodded discovers that the article was since deleted without notification.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per DGG (which I also happen to agree that de-prodders are strongly encouraged to explain why in the edit summary why they are contesting the prod). I also feel that this would be hard to enforce. –MuZemike 03:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We should not over-bureaucratize the WP:PROD process. The PROD process is for uncontested deletions, and if someone removes the PROD tag, that should be enough to establish that the deletion is contested and the PROD process does not apply. It would be desirable for anyone removing a PROD tag to explain their reason or edit the article's content to improve it, and the template for proposed deletions should (and does) encourage users to do so, but it should not be a requirement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the sentiment, but adding such a rule would inevitably lead to feuds over the nitty-gritty of the rationales (e.g. is "does not deserve deletion" a rationale or a mere statement?), and that defeats the whole purpose of PROD, which is to be a lightweight deletion process. -- Cyber  cobra (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As with most similar proposals on which I comment, I oppose a hard and fast rule, but strongly support people being encouraged, recommended, urged, etc. to add a reason. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose; no need for changes, the current language works well. In the case mentioned, it would have been nice for the remover to write out "I disagree", or explain that the PROD was improper due to the previous AFD, but the failure to do so doesn't invalidate the fact that the deletion is disputed. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand prod, the idea is to handle -- with a minimum of fuss or superfluous discussion -- those pages which no one objects to deleting; if someone objects, it seems to me that the scenario has changed and that some discussion might be in order. In the event it turns out those objections are without basis in policy or are otherwise paper-thin, that's easy enough to handle, but we won't know if we don't take the time to talk things through. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, PROD is supposed to be a very simple process. This will do nothing other than to complicate it. It is already recommended that a reason be given for removing a PROD notice. If it becomes a rule, all you're going to have is a need to track down every single user who removes a PROD without a rationale, and sanction them somehow. It's going to be a ridiculous amount of time spent when it can't even be determined if the PROD removal was not in good faith. Time is better-spent doing other things, for example, creating an AfD. If it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and at least one person wants the article to stay on Wikipedia, then rightfully the debate must move to AfD. If they have a good reason, they can explain it there. If not, the article will be deleted. It's just How It Works. No need to complicate the situation. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion, then?
How about simply adding something along the lines of "administrators or other users removing a Proposed Deletion tag are strongly advised to give a rationale for doing so, either through an edit summary or on the article's talkpage". Ironholds (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what the page says anyway: "You are encouraged to [...] explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page [and] consider improving the article to address the concerns raised." And the weak wording is clearly inadequate, since it's not having its intended effect. ╟─TreasuryTag► sundries ─╢ 13:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Change it to "it is important that you explain..." or something?Ironholds (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That, and enquire of any editor de-prodding without giving a reason what their reason is. This will hopefully have the effect of encouraging them to use at least an informative edit summary in the future.  pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to be careful not to give the impression that it is required or even preferred that admins remoe the tag: Let's try
 * users (including administrators) removing a Proposed Deletion tag are very strongly advised to give a rationale for doing so, either through an edit summary or on the article's talkpage. I disagree a little with Ironholds here, because the term "very strongly advised" is much more positive than "it is important that" . It makes it easier to explain things to someone who consistently does not do this. (I at least interpret "very strongly advised"  as one   step less than "required" -- and I think that is our intention here.    DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I've got to be entirely opposed to any wording anywhere on anything that isn't directly related to actively blocking from including "any administrator..." in it. Admins have community trust for the call on blocks, but others can participate almost everywhere. Learned this the hard way recently on several levels. Really, it encourages less activity from WikiElfs and the life, leads some users to entirely ignore any even AGF advice if from a non-admin, and adds to the Admins-are-mightier-than-thou bit once thinking only a select group decides right and wrong.
 * Maybe we could come up with one, and only one "invalid" PROD removal ... removal with zero improvement to the article and no edit summary or talk page use anywhere. Result would be scolding via template and right for original tagger to replace the PROD. Dangerous, but that's why it's so precisely worded with no room for interpretation. This, to cover the user WP:POINT micro-actions to ignore opinions of others and show they will not discuss anything. Could be considered the "firm template" version of this. Opposite? A 100% AGF template left for persons removing with weak/1-word reasons, maybe? Or to any user with past contributions? Total AGF with a pre-advisory of possible AfD they'd get a notice about and could follow. ...Would mean be less bite-y for an AfD discussion ... cooler heads = good. The most brutal AfDs generally have a very upset user already on tilt the instant they get a talk page notice. Even if a simple consensus either way on the AfD, it's still painful. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The template now reads: "It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: (reason) If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced."

I think that's strong enough. If please doesn't work, "very strongly advised" probably won't work either. In any case, getting the tag remover to say I"I disagree" or "I think the East Podunk, Wisconsin Homeless Children Yodeling Society deserves an article" isn't likely to change the way the process ultimately evolves. And the PRODer can always post a question on the remover's talk page if she really wants to know the remover's rationale. If that fails, AfD is the mechanism to resolve contested deletes.--agr (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually ...quite true. At Template:Prod it also implies that vandalism removals of the template can be replaced (and if not, WP:CONTESTED per norm). ...Just that it there states that even bad faith removals can't be replaced, which is fine, but the difference between the terms is kind of gray in cases like this & I suppose you could say that's why I specifically mentioned in details of my generic idea. Can we agree on less bite~y and point~y looks on templates sent for everything along the PROD process at least? That red "!" seriously does look intimidating as hell, especially on a new user's talk page that might not even have a welcome message yet.
 * If there's more disruption down the line do we have something specific to point to if XfD templates are removed? One advantage to double-PRODding and unexplained removal would be that any revert or disruptive edit past just one XfD removal would be a 3RR violation and simplify a possible block vs going through a more discussion-based forum. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that any XfD template removed after a warning is vandalism, and blockable as such. --  At am a  頭 07:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, avoid conflating vandalism with disruption. While removing a XfD template is disruptive and a user that persists after beeing warned should possibly be blocked, it is not given that they are acting in bad faith, and so we should not call it vandalism.  Taemyr (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I am. The only defense for such disruption is ignorance; not knowing that they weren't supposed to be removing it. After being told that it's simply not allowed (one of the few things that just really aren't allowed) I would consider it intentional disruption, and they are acting in bad faith. Not to mention, it falls under "avoidant vandalism" and removing AfD tags is specifically mentioned as a type of vandalism at WP:VAN. So, yes, it would be absurd to assume good faith in such a situation, it's clearly vandalism. --  At am a  頭 02:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose suggestion. I'm already wary of the destructive potential of PROD as it is. Anyway, it is already suggested that you give a reason for removing a PROD tag. Whether you give a reason or not is irrelevant. Whoever wants the article to be deleted is free at any time to stick it in AfD. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Please see WP:FIES which states, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content...". Talk pages are the proper place to engage in discussion about the merits and future of an article.  Per WP:BOLD, the onus is upon the initiator of bold action to start discussion when his action is reverted.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea of PROD is that it's easy to do and easy to undo. It's intentionally bureaucracy-free and involves no subjective judgement such as whether an adequate rationale has been given. In a nutshell: anybody can stick a PROD tag on an article that has never before been nominated for deletion, and anybody can remove the tag. That's how it should stay. We have speedy deletion for obvious deletions and various XFD procedures for cases where the deletion is disputed. --TS 12:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose As per others, the beauty of PROD is bureaucy-free. In cases where you believe PROD may be controversial (or after it has been removed) AfD the article in question if you still think it deserves deletion. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Discussion and explanation should always be encouraged, as should attempts to determine notability/appropriateness of content before attempting to get it deleted. We don't need changes to force this and we already have a recommendation that removal is explained - if someone removes a PROD tag then it should be assumed that they disagree with it. It would be much better if they stated why, but if unclear, a discussion on the article's talk page would be appropriate, and of course a meaningful attempt at WP:BEFORE prior to taking it to AFD if no convincing explanation is forthcoming.--Michig (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)