Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling/Archive 1

Proposal to change duration  of WP:BLPPROD from  10 to  7 days
If you would like to  comment, please see: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/RfC: Change duration from 10 to 7 days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Proposed Deletion Patrolling at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Veto Power?
I have a general question about proposed deletion patrolling. It seems as if a single editor could watch the prod list and contest every proposed deletion, either always disagreeing with the reason given or making minor edits to allegedly fix the problem, and thus make it so that in effect proposed deletions don't exist - all deletions would have to be afDs. Are there any policies that would prevent this from happening?

Note: I am not a deletionist complaining about articles being kept; I am a member of the Article Rescue Squadron and believe that most prods should be reworked and improved rather than nuked. My concern is that some articles that are badly in need of help might get deprodded rather than marked for rescue or simply fixed by the regulars. One solution might be to let a prod sit for four or five days to see if it attracts anyone who is willing to rework the article, and then deprodding it only after the regulars and the ARS have had a fair chance to notice it and fix it. Guy Macon 16:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All rules and policies are subject to be overruled on an individual basis by collaborative agreement. If one person did what you are suggesting, they would normally go into the dispute resolution process. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Deprodding every article would get a lot of attention, but someone could do the above on one topic and not get noticed. In my opinion, if someone opposes a proposed deletion, the prod should be removed by a 'bot after 7 days instead of immediately.  This will encourage improving the article. Guy Macon (talk)  20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. What would the de-prodder do to indicate this? Perhaps use the HOLDON or a similar mechanism? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Most articles need improvement as only about 1% of our articles have reached the GA threshold. Articles can be tagged for specific improvements but the proposed deletion tag is not appropriate for this because it is recommending the opposite of improvement.  It is best to remove the prod tag immediately to remove the threat of peremptory deletion which will tend to deter editors from working upon the article rather than encouraging them. Warden (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts
It appears to me that, after six days, typically forty PRODs will remain. Of those, typically slightly more than half will need to be removed. Of those twenty or so articles, perhaps ten will be manifestly ineligible for deletion (one sees many PRODs placed on topics that have literally hundreds of sources in GBooks), and perhaps the other ten will be sufficiently questionable that they should not be deleted by PROD. One also sees lots of PRODs placed on mergeable content and plausible redirects in violation of ATD. One also sees lots of inappropriate mass nominations from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to patrol the PRODs within the seven day deadline. The impression I get is that admins are generally not effective at correctly assessing the merits of nominations and significant numbers of erroneous deletions take place. This project is presently marked as semi active. It needs to become fully active as soon as possible, as we need more eyes on this process as it, frankly, isn't working properly. We also need a new project to systematically review the PROD list for inappropriate deletions. It would not surprise me if there are hundreds or even thousands of articles that need to be undeleted via REFUND. I think it would be expedient to change the PROD policy to restrict the use of PRODs on non-BLPs and/or increase the duration of such PRODs. James500 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with your assessment that many PROD nominations are not appropriate and there doesn't seem anyone around to balance that. I haven't yet checked to see how well administrators are doing their job of reviewing before deleting. It looks like this project is not very active and is not likely to reactivate. In that light I would support restricting the use of PROD on non-BPL articles and increasing the time before articles are deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Marking patrolled daily categories
I've been marking daily categories I've patrolled by editing the corresponding category page (e.g. Category:Proposed deletion as of 1 March 2016‎) with "Patrolled ~Kvng (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)" If others would do the same, we could avoid duplicated effort. Thanks. ~Kvng (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)