Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Notifying creators

I've lately seen several situations in which the prodding editor notified the page's creator, even though it was created as a redirect. For example, Czar created Review of Education as a redirect, someone else converted it into a stub, and when a third editor prodded it, Czar was notified, but the converting editor wasn't. As far as I'm seeing, WP:PROD doesn't address this situation at all. Should we add anything reminding editors to notify the right person? Would it even be helpful? In this instance, the prod was added via Twinkle, so I'll see if I can ask a similar question at a Twinkle-related talk page. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The same problem can occur with AfDs, and I don't think a particularly good solution has been found. Really, every major contributor to the page should be notified, which presumably includes the creator, but there isn't a particularly good way to identify them using the automated tools that send the creator notifications. Monty₈₄₅ 22:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Why I think article creators shouldn't be able to take down prods.

This editor has just gone and created[1] about 100 unreferenced articles. I tried prodding a few, but he or she took them down. How do we know these are notable? How do we know this actually happened?...William 18:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor answered[2] an inquiry I made at his talk page. They wrote- 'I've taken them from List of United Kingdom by-elections (1868–85)'. After I told them that would violate WP:CIRCULAR. Then came this reply= 'That would be true if I was citing the page. I'm not.' But that's his source. May I also add, he put unreferenced tags up on two of the three articles I PRODed. Any suggestions what to do next? A massive AFD?...William 19:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletions, unlike speedy deletions, can be proposed for just about any reason. It is therefor important that they should be taken down for any reason by anyone. The AfD will be lost as these are all actual by-elections and therefor will be seen to be notable, and the references will be found soon enough. JASpencer (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Merely being unreferenced is not a valid reason to delete something. Being unverifiable is a valid reason, but that requires that there are no suitable sources for the information in question, not just that the article doesn't cite any. In this case it's very clear that there are sources available for this information (such as, say, these) so any AfD would have no chance of succeeding. Hut 8.5 21:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No opinion on the specific case mentioned. On the topic about article creators taking down PRODs on articles they created, I have no problem with it. PROD means to me an "unopposed deletion" and if someone opposes it, then we go to AFD. The mechanism is in place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion it's already too easy to delete an article through PROD. Many articles receive no review other than the nominator and the admin who closes the PROD, and the admin doesn't actually have any formal responsibility to review the proposed deletion. I spent a few months reviewing PRODded articles daily and I contested about 20% of the proposals as invalid. Let's not throw up more road blocks. Pburka (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I was on PROD patrol a few years ago and it was far higher than 20% that I took down - so at least things have improved since then. JASpencer (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In the specific case, the list article is referenced to F. W. S. Craig's compendium on the subject. The need to repeat the citation in each article is at most a technicality of wiki process which contributes little to actual wp:V. This doesn't strike me as a great reason to hit the delete switch. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletions are for articles where nobody (including the article creator) has a good faith objection to deletion. They are meant to be uncontroversial and a way to circumvent our usual deletion processes when a deletion discussion isn't necessary, but an article doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. Think of a PROD as halfway between AfD and CSD. If the article creator was not allowed to object to a PROD, it would go against the original purpose of the deletion method.

That's not to say that anyone can object for any reason whatsoever. There have been instances (I've witnessed them myself) where a disruptive editor removes the proposed deletion tags from a massive number of articles with no explanation and without discretion, simply as a form of vandalism. These editors were shown to be vandalism-only accounts so clearly there was no good faith in the objections. In those cases, the proposed deletion tags were restored and the deletion process was allowed to continue without interruption.

If there is a case where someone creates 100 new articles that you feel don't meet inclusion criteria, there are three options. Propose them for deletion (which cannot stand if the author objects), find speedy deletion criteria that apply to the articles and tag them (which only works if the articles meet those criteria) or nominate them for deletion per AfD. If you have a large number of related articles that have the same problem, you can propose a single AfD discussion which encompasses them all. Yes, it requires work on your part, but you're also undoing the work that another editor has put into creating those articles in the first place, so it's only fair. -- Atama頭 22:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I know this is an older discussion, but I feel compelled to respond. The WP:PROD policy states in part, "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." The same policy later states, "Even after it has been deleted, a PRODed article can be restored by anybody through an automated request for undeletion." To sum this up, PROD is for when there is no opposition for deletion. If one editor opposes, then generally it should go to deletion review for a discussion. If we did not allow article creators to object to a PROD, then they would likely just request the article be restored later. That seems very clumsy to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the instance mentioned at the top of this section is a good example of why WP:PROD does allow deprods by anyone. WP:PROD is designed and intended only for abandoned pushovers; it's not for anything any page editor (or a reader) is still even the slightest bit interested in, regardless of how baseless the page or its champion is. That's why prods evaporate at the slightest touch: Even a deprod without a reason is still its own authority. It's even one of the few things (maybe the only thing) that policy allows even without good faith: see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting. A deletion request with no strict criteria, which the target editor can object to but can't remove, already exists: That's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. And if an unfair/misleading prod couldn't be contested by contributors, and it's a new or less-watched page that only has the attention of the contributors so far, how do those who are interested in the page alert others to come unprod a deserving page, except by possibly-unwelcome Wikipedia:Canvassing, before a busy admin comes across a facially-reasonable (but baseless) prod summary and deletes? --Closeapple (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: - this is not a PROD issue, this is an editor issue - if @JASpencer: continues to (disruptively) create masses of unreferenced or poorly referenced articles then a topic ban might be suitable. GiantSnowman 10:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Parilaimentary by-elections are inherently notable topics and the articles can grow. The very basic articles add more factual content on these topics than Wikipedia had before. Wikipedia is never finished. JASpencer (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In general I agree with the above points. PROD is intended for completely non-controversial deletions. It also has the added advantage that it can serve as a prod (pun intended) to the creator or other interested editors to fix what might otherwise be a fatal flaw without the hassle of going to AfD. However, if I may stray from the narrow topic to the broader issue of editors creating unsourced articles; that is something I have longstanding issues with. IMHO the same rules that govern BLPs should apply to all articles. Which is to say that there should not be articles without sources, period. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The existence, and tolerance for unsourced articles, severely undermines the credibility of that claim. The burden for providing at least some source on a new article rests squarely with the articles principal author. If an editor is habitually creating unsourced articles I think that is something that after informal attempts at correction, could justify a formal warning and eventually a trip to ANI if remonstration fails. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In this case it has been a while (about 18 months I think) since I created unsourced articles. I've usually added Leigh Reyment. But if there is going to be a general fatwah against unsourced articles then this should be a policy and that should start with creating an automatic deletion criteria (if there are a large number of deletions to a user then that would be an appropriate case for bringing this sort of case forward). JASpencer (talk)

I appreciate that you are being more careful about unsourced articles. With respect to fatwahs (an unfortunate choice of words), I would like to see clarification and stronger wording on the subject. But IMO existing policy and guidelines pretty much preclude unsourced articles. I don't know how you can create an article without sources that is compliant with WP:V and WP:CITE. Persistently ignoring those guidelines, especially after appropriate counseling and or warnings, could be seen as a form of disruptive editing. In a very extreme case, and I am not pointing any fingers here, I could see myself supporting a topic ban from creating new articles if someone just thumbed their nose and kept doing it over and over again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Module:RfD

I1m sorry this is not the right place to put this I am sure but I don't know how to list it. The module is fully protected and its talk page is fully protected so I cant discuss it with the creator. Which is stupid, but presumably a deliberate intent by the creator, so WP:AGF tends to wane. I tried listing at WP:CSD and WP:PROD but I can't, because the page is fully protected, so it won't let me leave a message saying I hav

This is nonsense. It is a new module that is entirely unused, and actually is incorrect in many ways. The way to list something at WP:RFD is to list it at WP:RFD, and the regulars of which I am one are very forgiving if people make some techinical mistake, we take things on sentiment and then go and check the facts, we don't go on whether you're a kestrel or a knave. There is simply no need for this and it is getting in the way because it was created by someone who has never been at WP:RFD, never sought consensus for it to be created. Entirely unnecessary and blocking searches by its presence.

Delete it please Si Trew (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, what's your problem? Everything you've said is false. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Module:RfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Module:RfD, and Template talk:Rfd#It's useless I tried to PROD it but it is 'fullly protected' we don't need it. I'm entitled to my opinion. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I added the MfD notice to the doc page, so it appears above the module. Further discussion should take place at MFD.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Why does this template need to be substituted?

Why not just "prod", rather than "subst:prod"? What's the justification for template substitution here? A "prod" template is never permanent; one way or the the other, it's gone in a week. There's no performance requirement for this template. Expanding it early just confuses its removal when necessary. --John Nagle (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the point of substituting it so that it has the dates of when it was placed and when it expires? If it wasn't substituted, I think the date and time it was placed would have to be a parameter, which would make it more confusing to use. If someone supplied the wrong date or time, then it might look like the prod had expired when really it hadn't been in place for 7 days yet. Calathan (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if you don't subst it, it displays "This template must be substituted." and puts the page in Category:Proposed deletions needing attention; but if you do subst it, what you get is the {{Proposed deletion/dated}} template with two parameters: |concern= is whatever you put in the |concern=, |reason= or first unnamed parameter; and |timestamp= is set to the value of {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} at the moment of saving the page. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarified article text

In order to make what I hope are improvements to understanding of this article, I have slightly modified the lede, and added a second 'graph summarizing the main restrictions on using PROD. Eaglizard (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the bit about never using PROD simultaneously with speedy deletion. The previous version said nothing about this; and there are times when both may apply. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I made some additional changes. Prod is no quicker than AFD, they both run 7 days. Also I changed where it call the AFD process "deletion review". WP:Deletion review is a completely different process that takes place after a deletion discussion has taken place or a page has been deleted via CSD. -- GB fan 18:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently prodded by mistake — can it be prodded again?

A user added a PROD template to the article Mathias Eklöf as unsourced in September 2015, pretty much immediately after creation, citing WP:BLPPROD.[3] That was apparently a mistake or perhaps an edit conflict, as the same user removed the PROD one minute later with the edit summary "now sourced". (I guess it's an illustration of why new articles had better not be tagged for deletion immediately.) The article actually has seven references, though none of them impressive as far as notability. I think this article is a natural for PROD per CSD A7, since I don't see how being CEO of Yell.ru is a WP-compliant claim to notability. (Yell.ru itself doesn't have a Wikipedia article.) It seems excessively bureaucratic that the previous mistaken and withdrawn PROD should force me to take the article to AfD instead (where it will no doubt languish without input). But I suppose it can't be helped? Bishonen | talk 09:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC).

BLPPROD and PROD are separate deletion policies. That article had a BLPPROD placed on it, but it hasn't ever been prodded with a regular PROD, so it is still eligible for deletion by regular PROD. The first note at the bottom of WP:PROD makes it clear that a BLPPROD doesn't prevent a later regular PROD. Calathan (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I am that user :) The article writer produced sources during the course of what must have been an edit conflict, and somehow I didn't get that flagged. So I removed my BLPPROD notice straight after. I don't see BLPPRODs as being a tag for immediate deletion, rather a useful warning note that the article is missing an essential ingredient. And the article writer gets a week to address the issue before it will even be considered for deletion. As for PRODing it again, I think Calathan has the solution above. A BLPPROD is quite a different animal to a PROD. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that WP:CSD#A7 is not relevant here, nor is any CSD really relevant to any PROD decision. Being CEO of Yell.ru may well not be sufficient to establish notability, But I think it is a claim of Significance sufficient that an A7 speedy would not be valid. But a PROD is not bound by that, it is a judgement call.

Thank you all. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC).

Massively removing PRODs for no reason

There is a currently a discussion at WP:ANI#De-prodder about an IP address that has been massively removing PRODs for no reason. The current sentiment there is that nothing can be done about it because technically, the IP has not broken any rules. I understand that PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions, and if there is any disagreement it should go to AFD, but this type of editing completely undermines the purpose of PROD. Another editor put it perfectly "Define "contested" though. One thing is "contesting", as in, being against the deletion of a particular article; another thing is "contesting" the idea itself that articles can be PROD'd; yet another is mass-dePROD'ing likely so that you can grab popcorn and watch admins and others wikilawyer over policy at ANI. LjL (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)" I feel that there has to be some sort of policy change to prevent editors to get away with this sort of disruptive behavior. We can't PROD articles without a reason, so isn't it fair to ask for a reason for removing PRODs? It doesn't even have to be a good reason. Something like "He's the best author ever" will be fine. As long as it is relevant. JDDJS (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• The PROD process is supposed to be used "if no opposition to the deletion is expected." The process provides a home for the reason for the prod – the tag which goes on the article. If there is opposition then the process is aborted and the tag is removed – there is then no place for the counter-argument. Think of it like BRD: someone makes a bold proposal (deletion); another editor opposes by reverting. The onus is then on the bold editor to start discussion, if appropriate, and this is typically done by starting an AFD page. Andrew D. (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Following the revert example, if someone were to revert everything that showed up in recent changes they would probably be blocked for disruption. This kind of mass de-prod is similarly indiscriminate and disruptive. I'm not sure if it is the best way to go about preventing this kind of disruption, but requiring a rationale for PROD removal would at least demonstrate that a user is de-prodding based on the merits of the article and not as a means to make a point or disrupt. Vrac (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said at ANI - removing PRODs for no reason is usually fine, but mass removing is clearly disruptive. GiantSnowman 14:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There has never, in my experience, been a case of mass PROD removals where the deprodder actually has something sensible to say about the articles in question. It is always just pointy attempts to wreck the PROD process for everyone else. The way to deal with that is to ban the offender from deprodding, rather than to do anything to WP:PROD itself. Reyk _YO! 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• I see a display of POINTy behaviour here, but I'm not sure it's disruptive, or at least as disruptive as people think. Many of the removed PRODs were quite lousy -- this one, for example, declared that an actress with multiple recurring roles in network TV series was "not a public figure", which makes no sense at all [4]; this one claims "no notable credits" on a bio with sourced claims of screenwriting credits on notable films [5]; this one simply declares "not notable", even though broadcast TV stations are generally notable. [6] This looks like a subpar response to subpar nominations to me, and if any action results, it should be taken against both subpar sides. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• The speed of removal, and lack of edit summaries, shows that there was no such thoughts on possible notability. GiantSnowman 17:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, the rate of removal of questionable PRODs is much higher tham random choice would indicate. It looks more like they had a lot of open tabs, selected out the ones they wouldn't deprod, then went bang-bang-bang through them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• And today the IP went on a spree of removing carefully reasoned, well-stated prods that, again, is unlikely to be coincidental. More fool me. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggest closing the loophole with wording such as "An exception allowing PROD to be restored when removed en mass, as uncontroversial WP:POINTy behaviour." Widefox; talk 01:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree the wording needs to be amended, maybe about "PRODs camay be restored if there is community consensus that the de-PRODder had been mass removing PRODs in bad faith." GiantSnowman 10:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anything like "bad faith" should be used because that cannot be proven or even confidently asserted. In fact, the current wording says to not restore a prod even if it was removed in bad faith. All that's needed is something to the effect that mass removal of PRODs can be reverted by consensus. The IP (and, I think, previous cases) has revealed a weakness which will now be exploited by trolls, and fairly strong measures will probably occasionally be needed, such as blocks after a single warning for anyone who mass de-PRODs without good explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The (now blocked) disruption doesn't matter if bad/good faith (blackhat or whitehat). It highlights how a simple tweak to PROD would make this type of WP:POINT explicitly less expensive to deal with, cutting down the 3RR/drama/gaming. How about:

1. "PRODs should be restored if there is consensus that they have been mass removed, as uncontroversial WP:POINTy behaviour."

2. or "should be" "may only be" Widefox; talk 12:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

With current wording:

If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking, mass removals (when uncontroversial WP:POINTy behaviour) or obvious vandalism, and tags removed by banned users may be restored. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Widefox; talk 13:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I like it, although someone will probably use "uncontroversial" to contest when it happens. Perhaps something like "(when deemed WP:POINTy or disruptive behavior by consensus)"? Vrac (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A) 1. uncontroversial 2. mass 3. POINT so that bad faith removal of a handful of PRODs are still allowed. Uncontroversial would exclude the mass dePRODDers objection. The wording is crucial to make this an exception that doesn't change the rule or be claimed by PRODer or dePRODer except in uncontroversial cases.

If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking, mass removals (when deemed WP:POINTy or disruptive behavior by consensus) or obvious vandalism, and tags removed by banned users may be restored. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

B) Alternatively, we could simply have an exception for mass which leaves no wiggle-room/drama:

If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking, mass removals or obvious vandalism, and tags removed by banned users may be restored. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Widefox; talk 14:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - PROD can't be replaced but exceptions already exist, so ping those above for objection to A, or choice of A/B/their C/none/(suggest RfC): User:JDDJS, User:Andrew Davidson, LjL Giant User:Reyk User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Johnuniq Widefox; talk 15:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to prefer B, but either is fine. GiantSnowman 15:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I also prefer B, although I think we should separate/clarify the reference to banned users, since those could be actual objections to deletion. How about "This excludes removals that are clearly not objections to deletion, such as page blankings, mass removals, and obvious vandalism. Tags removed by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block may also be restored"? That parallels the language in WP:G5. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I also prefer B, but I'm happy with either. JDDJS (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For either, the definition of mass may be wiggle-able, I found only WP:MASSPROD which formerly had mass dePROD [7].

There's a corner case: Editor a) mass PRODs, then editor b) mass dePRODs. (a or b's action could be any combination of reasonable/good/bad faith/POINT/admin work). If we have mass dePRODing isn't allowed, logically we have to have mass PRODing isn't allowed? Widefox; talk 16:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt to add that to the rules, but I don't find it particularly necessary. JDDJS (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I prefer B but the "banned users" wording needs tweaking. Please don't expand it with mention of "in violation of their ban" because that's unnecessary padding which will invite pointless arguments—someone is either banned or they're not. If a fuss ever erupted about restoration of a PROD removed by a banned user, somone would quickly remove it themselves and the wording here does not need to agonize over the issue. Here is my take:

  If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking, mass removals or obvious vandalism; additionally, tags removed by banned users may be restored. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Going with preference for B, mass PROD can always be (mass) dePRODed normally so leave for now, and banned tweak:

If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking, mass removals or obvious vandalism; additionally, tags removed by banned users may also be restored. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

 Done Widefox; talk 13:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I know I'm coming here late, even after the fact, but just noting more support for this. This is obvious gaming of the system that defies the spirit of the policy and the bases we adopted it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
• Like Fuhghettaboutit, I am late to the party, but I would like to add my support. I am almost always against instruction-creep in the form of adding more "rules" to policies to try to stop specific ways in which disruptive editors misuse policies, believing that a better approach is to simply take the line that policies are a general guide to the principles to apply, rather than a set of exact rules, and keeping policies as short and simple as possible is desirable. This time, though, the advantage outweighs the disadvantage of a tiny increase in the content. Of course, we can look forward to wikilawyering about exactly how many removals in how much time constitute "mass removals", but we will just have to ride that out. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, maybe a one-in one-out rule would be good, but we'd have to get rid of one first! I couldn't find any mass edit guidance, so this could be removed from here and made more general. That, at least, is one-in one-out. Widefox; talk 15:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've been following this from the sidelines but I figure I will add my support for the change here to "document consensus" or whatever. Jbh^Talk 15:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think the instruction for objecting should also reflect this.

"To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from the article. However, mass removal of this tag from multiple articles is not allowed. You are encouraged, but not required, to also: ..."

So that those who are new to PROD can learn the rule that mass removals are against policy. 66.49.121.107 (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but keeping them separate - when and how - seems sensible, and not sure how much new PRODers will be doing it on mass so seems a bit WP:CREEP. Widefox; talk 17:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• • I think that change was an extremely bas idea, as are most policy changes to deal with a single unique problem that may never repeat--that's why we have IAR, so we don't have to tinker continually with policy. But if we have made this change in policy, I consider it applies not in terms of number, but it terms of doing it without consideration of the actual articles. I, for example, have for years gone through the Prod list and have sometimes removed 10 or more prods out of the 100 or 200 there in a row. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If more admins would be willing to block for disruption, even when there is a loophole that technically allows it, then this policy change would not have been necessary. The particular case of disruption behind this change went on for quite a while before someone actually stepped up to end it. Vrac (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The change only forbids mass removals that are "clearly not an objection to deletion". As long as you include a reason you can remove as many PROD tags as you like. It's not a unique problem, I did once see a similar case of an editor removing a large number of PROD tags for essentially no reason, and I got into trouble for reverting the removals. This is essentially another case of gaming the system by manipulating a rule to allow something it wasn't intended for. Hut 8.5 21:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

DGG I 100% agree with you in principle this should be undesirable as WP:CREEP, but my reasoning about why the principle is important with PROD is due to the inversion of normal logic with PROD (can't be replaced when removed). So in practice the level of disruption created by say hundreds of AfDs / edit warring over the confusion over the dePROD/rePROD legitimacy is unacceptable burden in practice. That may (or may not) be similar with all gaming, though. Not sure.

Moving forward...do we have any policy / guideline for mass actions? If so, we could just refer to that and remove here. Also, if anyone has any objection please mention here as I share the concern of DGG that we don't want CREEP getting in the way, or wrangling over the limit of "mass". Widefox; talk 19:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This is why I wanted to include language about consensus on a case of mass-deprod being disruption. It's not really a question of quantity, it's a question of disruption or not. If admins won't recognize obvious disruption as obvious, policy has to explicitly say that indiscriminate mass-deprod is not acceptable. DGG's example of deprodding many articles is based on the merits of the articles, which is discriminate, and therefore the policy allows for it. This all strikes me as common sense, but if admins hold the policy to the letter, what choice do we have but to change it to prevent disruption? Vrac (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's not the numbers that matter. For example, in the recent case of Neelix, there were thousands of pages in question. Lots of them were prodded or deleted and then lots of them were restored as valid. The larger the numbers involved, the less time people are going to have for each individual case. If the editor performing the action is experienced like DGG then, per WP:AGF, we should assume that he knows what he's doing. If someone doesn't like it then they can ask. It's only if the editor is unresponsive that you have a problem. Andrew D. (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Separating the two issues - 1. WP:DISRUPTION could have mass mentioned anyhow, and then remove from here. 2. Due to the inversion of PROD it may still be worth mentioning (say linking to 1.) from here - as admins and non-admins may be averse to deal with rePROD due to the uniqueness of dePROD.

Does the wording "removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking, mass removals.." (emphasis own) satisfy? i.e. mass dePROD is allowed as long as it's clearly an objection to deletion. The grey area in the middle is grey. If anyone does anything on mass, surely they want to make clear why? The main issue may be about the rate of "mass", maybe? Widefox; talk 20:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think trying to precisely define ahead of time which mass de-prods are going to be disruption is doomed to failure. Each case will probably be different, and a consensus can be reached on whether a case of mass deprod is disruption at the time it occurs. I think the change to the prod policy just needs to say if consensus determines that the deprods are disruption, then allow restore of the prod. This gives admins the "authority" to act on the consensus whereas up until now they seem to have felt (with the exception of Berean Hunter) that policy allows mass deprod no matter what. Vrac (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That was my our original option "A)" above. "B)" turned out more popular.

Looking for "mass" or "rate" gives WP:BOTREQUIRE where the wording about new bots may provide a rough guide of a human reviewable rate "a rate that permits review of their edits when necessary" . Widefox; talk 20:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it was already brought up as an option, I don't want to sound like I'm beating the dead horse but I thought it might be worth another look as we are struggling with definitions... Vrac (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

...and that's why dePROD may need this protection, as the rate at which the mass dePRODs can be assessed is very slow. It requires mass AfDs each with multiple editors and a minimum (AfD) period. Until many are done, it's not clear if the mass is random or above random. I took that point up with the IP at User talk:2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF when they were justifying their edits by highlighting dePROD hits. Unless it's statistically valid, it's not a strong argument. It's that burden that needs protecting. Widefox; talk 21:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• The mass dePROD (and unrelated wording tweak) has been undone [8]. There's some discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068_De-prodding_several_random_articles_without_explanation. User:Andrew Davidson can you reason it, as it appears to me (as nom) that only others can say about the level of consensus above, with notable views such as User:DGG. Doesn't this pass WP:PGCHANGE? Widefox; talk 11:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Reasoning for changing is the principle (rather than CREEPily fixing the practice) per above, just adding to that:

In practice, this particular incident may have been stopped once PROD WP:POINT disruption IAR is recognised by admins. Why did the disruption lasted so long? Is it because it's so expensive to see if they are valid or not (per above). If an admin felt they could have stepped in earlier then possibly we wouldn't feel the need to patch dePROD, but due to the expense of human reviewing the mass AfDs resulting from the mass dePRODs and difficulty of, essentially, statistical analysis to ascertain a real objection to deletion (rather than an objection to PROD).

The principle of mass dePROD is wrong in itself: I'm still on the side of disallowing it (with the caveat of that wording or better). The issue is that mass dePROD can't be quickly scrutinised by humans due to AfD timescales. Hence the principle is wrong, not just the practice - and so a worthy rule change to fix principle rather than fix a one-off practice. The rate of mass dePROD is too mismatched by the rate of each of the AfDs. There's effectively no human scrutiny, hence it's a principle problem, not a practice problem. the rate of mass PROD is equally matched by the rate of mass dePROD, so that doesn't need fixing. Widefox; talk 11:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Article PROD for two weeks still up

Just wanted to let an admin know that Katherine Boecher was PROD over two weeks ago and no one has objected or second it so they can take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.255.47 (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 16:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Question...

• Is notifying article creators with {{proposed deletion notify}} a requirement? (I always do that, but...) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ion Pop

Ion Pop - someone to delete this, it was a false redirect from a person to a village !--Fanatic of Football (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, if the article meets the criteria for deletion, you can add a template to it, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Gap9551 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

7 days

Can someone give me a recap as to why PRODs are only open for review for 7 days. WP:PRODPATROL is having a hard time keeping up. A longer review period would be appreciated. ~Kvng (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

PRODding articles previously deleted due to an expired PROD

I was surprised by the edit summary left by an editor who removed a PROD tag that I'd added to Miss Courtie: "not eligible for PROD - previously deleted by this method - please take to AFD". I questioned him on his interpretation of WP:PRODNOM here and our subsequent discussion is here.

As I said to GiantSnowman, I understand the rule in WP:PRODNOM, "Confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it: has not previously been proposed for deletion", to be referring to the situation where someone has removed a PROD tag. In other words, a PROD veto is final. It seems counterintuitive to me that that one phrase would have been intended to apply to two completely opposite situations, one where a veto has occurred in the current incarnation of the article, and one where a PROD was successful in a previous incarnation. Further, I don't see why the success of the previous PROD wouldn't be indicative of the very justifiability of a PROD again.

Is there a reason why two opposing situations would have been covered by a single provision without explicit acknowledgement of the duality of the provision's intent?

My questions:

• If there is a history or consensus behind the interpretation that GiantSnowman has given the provision, can someone point it out to me?
• Otherwise, can we have a discussion here, reach a consensus, and then word WP:PROD so that it explicitly reflects that consensus, whichever way it goes?

—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, an article being re-created after previously being deleted via PROD clearly shows that the deletion is no longer uncontroversial/unchallenged, and therefore adding another PROD tag is completely inappropriate. GiantSnowman 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Depends. Say someone prods an article on Joseph K. Bloggs, the lead singer of a crap garage band from New Zealand, and it gets deleted. Then someone posts the CV of a middle management guy at a Canadian investment firm also named Joseph K. Bloggs. Second incarnation should also be proddable. It's usually best to let processes run as intended, instead of looking for reasons to impede them. Reyk _YO! 14:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to apologize here. I thought I'd read and reread what GiantSnowman had written to me all the way through, but somehow his point, that he repeats here, about the idea that someone recreating an article is implicitly contesting the PROD, which is therefore now no longer uncontested, eluded me. Nevertheless, it still leaves two gaps:

1. The contesting is supposed to happen before the PROD expires. Do we understand the expiration to mean that the article can be deleted, or that the article can be deleted and the period during which the deletion can be contested is closed? If the latter, then closed is closed. If the former, then that's consistent with GiantSnowman's approach. Either way, I think it should be made explicit.
2. Then there's the point that Reyk made, which I agree with. In fact, even if the second article is about the same person, but the person who wrote it was unaware that there was ever a previous article, or didn't realize that it was deleted on account of uncontested PROD, or has no idea what a PROD is or how it works, then does it really make sense to describe him as "contesting" the previous PROD? Again, whatever we feel about this question as a group, let's be explicit about the conclusion.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your point 1, Largoplazo. After an article is deleted via prod, anyone can have it restored via WP:REFUND, normally pretty much automatically. Consider the recreation of the same content as being jsut an informal way of achieving the same result. After a refund restore, a 2nd PROD would not be plausible. If the subject is totally different, as in your 2nd example, then a 2nd PROD would IMO be reasonable, but an admin would need to check that the subject was in fact different. DES ^(talk) 16:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The contesting of a Prod can happen at anytime and can take many different forms. Some of the forms of contesting I have seen:

1. Recreation of the deleted article
2. Request at WP:REFUND
3. Request at an administrator's talk page
4. Request at the Help desk
5. Post on the article's talk page

I am sure there are many more and if the Prod is contested in any manner, the article shouldn't be deleted if it wasn't already or should be restored if it is already deleted (with certain exceptions such as undetected copyvio). Once it is contested in any form it Prod can not ever be used on the article again and should go through AFD to be deleted. -- GB fan 20:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Getting into a discussion of why the PROD policy says what it does is not helpful in terms of the original question. WP:PROD says clearly that a PROD "may only be placed on an article a single time" (although there's consensus that a PROD removal by a banned or indeffed user may be replaced) and "Confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it: has not previously been proposed for deletion." The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• I really disagree with the interpretation that some are making here, which in my view does not reflect the spirit of this policy. The intent is clearly to prevent the use PROD as part of a continued effort to get rid of an article that still exists. An article that was deleted, no longer exists. If someone re-creates it, that is a different article. Here is an example. I work on COI issues and recently uncovered a flurry of articles created by a paid editor who is very likely a sock - the SPI isn't closed yet but it is looking like the editor will be found to be a sock. (so no, I cannot speedy it as being created by a banned user yet) One of them was making an article on Katie Cleary which looked like this (not even close to a nice effort). A different article on that subject had been deleted through an AfD, here. I cleaned up the new article a little bit and then PRODed it. Calathan reverted, and I explained the background and asked him to self-revert and he said no, citing this discussion. This is not a good outcome, in my view. This is not the intent of the instruction not to use PROD after an AfD. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • In this case, why not use WP:G4? The new article does not address the reasons for deletion in the previous AFD. -- GB fan 19:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Looking again, forget about the above, a 2013 source is something that was not considered in that AFD. -- GB fan 19:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Jytdog, I was not specifically referring to this thread when I said at Talk:Katie Cleary that there was a consensus in past discussions that a recreation of an article deleted at AFD can't be deleted by prod. That subject has come up in various discussions in the past, and the general consensus that prod shouldn't be used on recreations of deleted articles dates back many years. Furthermore, you are way off on the intent of the policy. Prod is supposed to be used only in cases where no one objects or would reasonably be expected to object. The fact that someone recreated an article after it was previously deleted is a clear sign that they do think it should exist. It would not be in line with the purpose of prod to delete an article in such a case, as it is clear such a person does object to deletion. Even if the person who recreated an article is a paid editor, that doesn't matter as far as prod is concerned. If you think the person who recreated the article is acting inappropriately, that might be a reason to bring them up at ANI, but prod has nothing to do with that. Regardless, if someone went through the trouble of recreating a previously deleted article, and you think the article should stay deleted, then prod really doesn't do what you want. Prodded articles are automatically restored on request at WP:REFUND (provided they aren't copyright or BLP violations), and can also just be recreated unchanged. If you want the article to stay deleted, using AFD is not only the right way on a policy basis, but also the only option that would accomplish what you want. Calathan (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I wrote here to register my disbelief in your claim that it is really consensus of the community that a recreation of a deleted article cannot be PRODed. I need to read the archives before I say more; I may come to see things as you name them. Maybe. (I will say that by the logic you give, we should never PROD anything, as somebody cared about the article enough to create it, and who knows when they might come around. I really don't get it. But like I said I need to go read the archives. That won't be soon. Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

About how prod could ever be useful, I think this idea is that you are basically informing the page creator and any other editors of the page about why the article is problematic. In many cases, the person who created the page may not have been aware of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and once you explain to them that the page doesn't meet the guidelines they might not object to deletion. Calathan (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah fine, so let the creator actually object. For you to interfere with a PROD on the basis of your doubly abstract notion that a) someone "might" object and b) it is not valid to PROD the recreation of a deleted article, is very frustrating to me. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't remove the prod because I thought the page creator would object, but because it previously had an AFD, making it ineligible for prod. When I was saying above that the creator would object, that is an explanation of why the policy was written that way, but isn't why I removed the prod. I removed it because it is simply not eligible for prod by policy. Calathan (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Rename Sticky Prod section

It's been 6 years since the "sticky prod" was implemented - and I doubt many people would know what it is or why it's called Sticky. Twinkle calls it "proposed deletion of unsourced BLPs". The template is called "{{Prod blp}}". I propose that the section is rewritten as follows:

Current:

Sticky prod

Further information: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

A sticky prod process was established on April 3, 2010, requiring all biographies of living people (BLP) created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source that supports a statement about the subject, or it can be proposed for deletion. The {{prod blp/dated}} tag may not be removed until such a source is added, and if none is forthcoming within seven days the article may be deleted. This does not affect the regular prod process, which may still be used on BLPs, including BLPs from which the sticky prod has been legitimately removed.

Proposed:

Proposed deletion of unsourced BLPs (BLPProd)

Further information: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

An alternative prod process was established in 2010 specifically for unsourced biographies of living people (BLPs). This process reinforces the requirement that all BLP articles created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one reliable source that supports a statement about the subject, or else the article can be proposed for deletion with a BLPProd. The {{prod blp/dated}} tag may not be removed until such a source is added, and if none is forthcoming within seven days the article may be deleted. This has also been called a "sticky prod" as this BLPProd is "stuck" to the article until it has a reference, whereas a standard WP:PROD notice can be removed for any reason.. This does not affect the regular prod process, which may still be used on BLP articles, including articles from which the BLP prod has been legitimately removed by the addition of a reference.

The-Pope (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The wording made sense at the time, but doesn't really help contemporary editors. Pburka (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Would the second-last sentence be tidier as "This has also been called a "sticky prod" as this BLPProd is "stuck" to the article until it has a reference, whereas a standard WP:PROD notice can be removed for any reason.", hence moving the Prod contrast to the end? And is the "April 3, 2010" mention in the first sentence of any relevance at this point? AllyD (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with the clearer wording for the Sticky explaination, so I've changed it. I think it's useful to mention 2010, mainly to give it an anchor date in relation to the March 18 cutoff for it's use. But I agree that the exact date is no longer needed. Reworded the link between the new process and the sourcing requirement to make the link clearer (I hope). Thanks for your input. The-Pope (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is called sticky because it can't be removed by anyone for any or no reason, as can ordinary Prod. Names/titles do not have to contain all essential information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

This process actually has more in common with "delayed speedy" deletions (like F11, C1, and T3) than it does with PROD. Perhaps we should change it to speedy deletion A12 (keeping the same delay of course). Thoughts? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Should it be mandatory to give a reason?

I've contested several PRODs recently on the grounds that no reason for deletion has been given (example), and there was no obvious reason to delete it. Should we make it mandatory to add a reason? How would other admins react when/if they come across a PROD like this? Optimist on the run (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The example you point out was PRODded by The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs) who has 12,000+ edits. I would assume a mistake: A user that experienced would either have accidentally misfired a PROD with some user tool, or absentmindedly forgotten a reason when they came back to the edit. I don't remember encountering one of these; but if I ever encounter one, I'd delete the blank PROD unless the article was so obviously deserving of a PROD that I could add the reason myself. I'd just ask the user why this happened. The only situation in which I can imagine a blank PROD being legitimately intentional is if an experienced non-English-speaking Wikipedian can translate enough to see that an en.wp article is worthless, but doesn't know English enough to give a reason, and assumes native English Wikipedians will figure it out when we see it; but again, I've never seen that. --Closeapple (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The example is something which verges perilously close to meeting the criteria for speedy deletion: being the oldest underwater diving club in one random city is not a claim of notability, and its one "reference" is a directory with a self-published blurb. Yes, late one night I absentmindedly forgot to tick the box stating the bleeding obvious reason, but I don't think that's one that admins should have terrible trouble working out on their own. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, although this is the latest example of a PROD without a reason, it is not the only one.

Secondly, I am not a mind reader, and unable to tell whether the nominator forgot to "tick a box", or simply couldn't be bothered to think of a reason.

Thirdly, I do not delete articles unless there is a specific reason to do so. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The onus should be on the nominator to make the case the the proposed deletion is not expected to be disputed. I would expect the administrator who closes the unexplained PROD to deprod and not delete. I doubt this is what actually happens. The administrator probably exercises his/her own judgement at closing. As a member of WP:PRODPATROL, I would feel no shame deprodding in cases where no reason or an invalid reason or reason inappropriate for PROD is given for deletion. The problem is, there are too few active WP:PRODPATROL members. ~Kvng (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with this and think it should be policy. It would take only a few seconds to provide an edit summary and be helpful in terms of how the original nominator would decide to go forward. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: PROD in user space

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been some discussion of what to do with abandoned pages (e.g. attempts at articles) in the user space of users who are not active. An example: a user registers an account, creates an article which is nowhere near ready for main space due to sourcing issues, and never edits again. There has been some drama about attempts to get rid of these articles. PROD looks like a good candidate for this housekeeping because of the lightweight process and the easy and uncontentious route to restoration. I therefore propose the following change to PROD:

PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, and disambiguation pages; it cannot be used with redirects, userspace pages, templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace.

becomes:

PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, disambiguation pages and pages outside Draft space which are clearly intended as draft articles but which have been abandoned; it cannot be used with redirects, non-draft userspace pages, templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace.

Guy (Help!) 16:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as proposer, Guy (Help!) 16:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Sort of agree with Thparkth below, because the question of whether stale drafts need to be deleted at all should be resolved before the issue of how to delete them. But userspace-prod is definitely the right way to go about it. It would provide other editors plenty of opportunity to review them before deletion, it would be uncontroversial restored at WP:REFUND, and if accompanied with a friendly message on the user talk page, it would not discourage newbies from creating further articles or picking up from where they left. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

# Support as an easy method to sidestep the issue at MfD. "Deletionists" (although I hate applying that term to myself) want stale drafts that are unlikely to produce anything of value deleted. "Eventualists" want everything preserved indefinitely unless it's an attack page, essentially, because it could potentially put off editors if they return a decade later. PRODing gives editors an extremely easy method to get their work back and makes it unlikely they'll be offended by the deletion. Problem solved, basically. ~ Rob^Talk 12:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

1. Oppose. This proposed change is commendably narrowly-framed and has one clear purpose - to facilitate the deletion of draft pages in userspace because they are "stale" - that is, because they have not been edited in a particular time period. There is currently an open RFC on whether or not such drafts should actually be deleted. The RFC is still in progress but there appears to be a strong consensus that they should not be deleted. Consequently the scope of prod should not be expanded as proposed to allow for deletions which are evidently against consensus. (Note that I do actually think prod would be the "right way to do it" if we were going to delete stale drafts). Thparkth (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose. In general, I don't think old drafts in user space are harmful, and WP:STALE and WP:MFD already provide ways to deal with any that seem problematic. Also, as Thparkth points out, there doesn't seem to be a consensus that these should be deleted at all. Calathan (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose - not needed, as already mentioned above we have sufficient means to deal with old drafts, plus also WP:CSD#G13. GiantSnowman 18:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Deleting someone's private scratchpad without good reason no matter the method still provides little-to-no net benefit and has great potential to alienate returning editors. –xeno^talk 10:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC) (Disclosure: my attention was drawn here by MSGJ at the other RFC (Special:Diff/713664262).
5. Oppose per arguments above. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Strong Oppose - And I'd be interested in those supporting to please define "inactive editor". "...never edits again"? - When does "never" arrive?... - jc37 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose There is an assumption that articles will or should have eyes on them. But a userspace page, almost be definition, will be unwatched by anyone but the user involved, in almost every case. This weakens the rationale for PROD having consensus to delete. I don't see any issue pressing enough for such a policy change. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I misjudged how those favoring keeping almost all drafts would receive this proposal. If it's just going to cause more arguments, then it's not a solution. I had hoped editors on the keep side would agree with me that this provides a more friendly method of removing content (i.e. REFUND is available), but they have not. ~ Rob^Talk 13:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose There is no stale draft problem, just that of editors unwilling to tolerate the rampant and ongoing imperfection necessary to keep a volunteer-edited project vibrant. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Prod is an easy, sloppy, deletion process that was accepted on the understanding that any page watcher could remove the Prod notice, and that once removed the article could never be Prodded again. It was good for random new junk that someone might be about to improve, but if not its deletion at AfD would be a foregone conclusion. In userspace and draftspace, pages do not have multiple watchers, certainly not watchers who care. Any new deletion process for userspace or draftspace must have very tight wording, as per CSD criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
11. Strong oppose – Through Google I stumbled across a lovely abandoned Draft that in User namespace that needed some TLC. The user had not edited in three years. I announced my find to one other editor and my intent to work on it in the User namespace until it was ready. When I went to move it from User namespace to Article namespace I discovered that within 15 minutes of my announcing my intent to work on the article that Dr. Blofeld created a stub article and I was therefore unable to do a simple move. Stale Drafts in User namespace can serve a purpose and should not be deleted. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• One reason for opposition is the existence of WP:CSD#G13. The issue here is that some editors dispute the deletion of user space drafts under G13 because they are in user space, dispute their deletion under U5 as they are atempted drafts, dispute there deletion via MfD for both reasons, and we're left with user pages which may be the sole contributions of editors who created them years ago and have not been seen since, and whatever means you try to use to remove them is always asserted to be the wrong one. PROD is a nice lightweight process with a low bar to restoration so is ideal for this kind of housekeeping. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  What problem does it solve? –xeno^talk 10:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  How would this solve the stated problem (that some people always contest certain types of deletions under WP:CSD and WP:MfD)? Wouldn't those editors contest/delete the PROD even more quickly than they would deletion under CSD or MfD? --Closeapple (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  Doesn't {{inactive userpage blanked}} accomplish the same ends with less work for everyone?  Rebbing  22:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  In response to all three of you: If people contest the PROD, then it would be subject to MfD, and we haven't gotten any worse off. Not every PROD will be contested, though. The problem this solves is the incentive issue of editors who wish only to inject their own vanity content onto Wikipedia. If we don't get rid of the nonsense, then more will certainly follow. Why would anyone host something on Wikia with ads, for instance, when we're providing free web hosting to anything that looks vaguely like an article? Why would anyone ever pay for a domain and set up a website for an auto-biographical "article" (read: slightly modified CV)? ~ Rob^Talk 12:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  As you know, we have Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Eligible Class Records as a classic example. Editor's been here since 2013 with close to a 100 file/speedy deletion warnings and still continues to create and revise the dozens and dozens of articles they created. And that's probably the four of that type I've found in the current year. There needs to be ways to discourage these people and "blank it all and block them and protect them if they return" is just an idiotic amount of time wasted chasing down characters who clearly aren't interested in helping create an encyclopedia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of any proposal intended to "discourage these people". So what? Someone is editing drafts which won't ever make good articles. If they're using Wikipedia bandwidth for hosting, then block and delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, otherwise why do not let them be? I don't see any evidence that there's a problem in need of solving. Pburka (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the "delete" is the question mark here. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Streetseekers/Blackwater Primero is an example of a terribly promotional draft and arguments were literally "blank it and see if the editor does become bothersome and if so then maybe do something". The problem is how much time and effort needs to be made basically engaging with people who clearly aren't here to work on the encyclopedia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this is too limited - WP:DRAFTPROD should just be revisited or speedy deletion expanded, I've processed many many MFD for pages that clearly will never become articles - but were held up from "process" by the shield of OMGDRAFT! - having to go through mfd to clear out gems such as X .. is a great person. or X .. is a boy with secrets to how he has made money he has not revealed it to anyone as he wants it secret. is a waste of time - I usually IAR speedy close them in MFD, suppose I could get dragged to drv one day, but when something has to regularly be dealt with by IAR its time to ammend the rules. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, Xaosflux. A better idea is the CSD#D* idea that received initial sounds of approval. Several like the A* criteria, but they need rewording for draftspace. However, I recommend letting Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring run its course first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soft deletion

Recent discussions about increasing the PROD period, relisting AfD discussions, deleting draft space pages, and dePRODding have got me thinking that there might be a common solution to at least a few of these issues.

Wikipedia has a number of deletion processes. WP:SPEEDY lets us delete blatantly unencyclopedic topics. WP:PROD lets us delete uncontroversially unencyclopedic topics, and provides more opportunity for review. WP:BLPPROD helps us protect living people. WP:AfD let us engage in discussions on controversial topics. But once these processes are completed (assuming consensus to delete) the articles are deleted the same way. An admin deletes the article, making it appear to most users as if the topic had never existed. Non-admin users have no ability to review the article which was deleted, and, for non-AfD processes, there's very little record of even the rationale for deletion. We do have a WP:REFUND process which allows deleted articles to be restored, and WP:DELREV for challenging AfD decisions, but these are both heavyweight.

There would, I suspect, be less objection to deleting articles if the post-deletion review and restoration process were less onerous. Imagine if Wikipedia supported 'soft deletion' for certain deletions, such as PRODs or AfDs with weak consensus or little discussion. A soft delete would still hide the article, but would allow any editor to review the content and history of a page. This would allow PROD patrollers to review PRODded articles even after they're deleted. This would also be less frustrating for new users whose work has been deleted, as they'd easily be able to restore it, perhaps moving it to draft space while they work to improve it. We could even apply it to draft pages, for users who are anxious to clean up that space.

Perhaps someone with some experience in the backend could comment on how much work this would be to implement if others feel it might be valuable. Pburka (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

One correction, I wouldn't consider WP:REFUND a heavyweight process but it fails to help us much because you must know what you're looking for before you can use WP:REFUND. I think a simple way to achieve what you are proposing here is that instead of deleting articles eligible for WP:REFUND they get moved to a different namespace (perhaps draft:). This solution wouldn't require any backend work. Curiously I find I'm not immediately excited about this proposal but I think it is definitely worth discussion and perhaps with further discussion, I will warm to it. ~Kvng (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, WP:REFUND is not heavyweight. It is moderateweight for editors not familiar with it, but I think appropriately so. Reversing a deletion is a moderately serious thing, it implies that the thing should not have been deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Soft deletion is a very old idea, and was rejected because some things should be hard deleted. Many things that don't need hard deletion can be suitably redirected, and this is a very agreeable form of soft deletion. Things that can't be redirected are typically orphan topics, and leaving unsuitable ophan topics so easily restored is a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I've recently been using WP:REDIRECT frequently as alternative to WP:PROD. But we see a lot of these come into prod and AfD. Many apparently have not read or do not respect WP:ATD or WP:BEFORE. In practice, I'm not sure that material that is "soft deleted" using a redirect is, in practice, any more accessible than stuff you need to use WP:REFUND to retrieve. At least at WP:REFUND you have a friendly administrator available to help you (yes, in the context of WP culture they really are friendly at WP:REFUND). With a redirect you have to know how to back out of the redirect target and then how to search history from the redirect and C-P or revert to retrieve. ~Kvng (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Signatures on prods

When articles are nominated for deletion the nominator's signature appears after the nominator's statement and justification for deletion. With a prod, some detective work in article history is required to determine the nominator or endorser of a prod nomination. Can we add the nominator's signature to the prod announcement and endorsements? ~Kvng (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It could be a good idea, but resistance to seeing signatures in the article space may prove a problem. Perhaps we could use, instead of signatures, pure links to one's userpages. See also my revised templates for prods, which I've amended to contain a link to my page (User:Piotrus/Templates#Deletion) so that deprodders have less excuse of not notifying me that they deprodded an article I prodded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no obligation or expectation that a De-prodding editor do anything of the sort. If you feel so strongly that an article should be deleted, then it is incumbent upon you to watchlist it or otherwise follow-up. The de-prodding of an article is always intended to be less burdensome than the prodding or deletion. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that deprodders have few obligations but, as you can see from the discussion above, not everyone feels that way so, where it is not too much of a burden, I try to be accommodating.

This is not the main reason I have brought this up. The main reason is that I trust the work of some editors more than others. More prominent disclosure of who is doing the prodding has the potential to improve collaboration and encourage editors to be more accountable for their work. ~Kvng (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft prod

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ok, based on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Draft_prod and the prior idea lab, I think there's support for creating a new draftprod system. The question is whether this should be added to WP:PROD or at WP:DRAFT or a separate Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of drafts. Any views here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Or a fourth option is to have WP:AFC take care of it. Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation aware of this? ~Kvng (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

To use AFC to take care of non-AFC drafts? The last discussions at WT:AFC were against tagging non-AFC drafts by people other than the original creator so has there been a massive change at AFC about this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't. If you keep creating separate discussions, maybe one will go the way you want? I think you are failing to listen. Failing to listen to exactly the same issues as discussed above at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#RfC:_PROD_in_user_space, as well as at Wikipedia:User_pages/RfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring. The next step has to wait for the close of that RfC to be completed. You are, in my opinion, operating on a false assumption, the false assumption being that something needs to be done. Also a compounding false assumption, that the something needs doing now. The opposing view is: If the draft page doesn't violate WP:NOT, leave it be.

Pragmatically, I remain of the view that processing draftspace costs more than draftspace is worth. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Userspace isn't draftspace. When you get away from the crowd at UP, Village Pump and larger discussions show support for it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No they don't. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have posted an announcement for WP AfC. I also have to question the purpose and value of these deletions. ~Kvng (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report shows the hundreds of old drafts in draftspace that aren't subject to G13. It's pretty dull and routine discussions at MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That there are hundreds of drafts is hardly a rationale for deleting them. If you want to attract support for this proposal you need to come up with a clear and compelling argument for why these articles must be deleted. Pburka (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's been discussed twice at the Village Pump with support. The proposal has come up vaguely at the CSD talk page Should I just start an RFC here so we can debate this again? Would it be preferable to have it here as an adjustment to the current prod system or a totally different policy page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Ok, based on the discussions here, I've started an RFC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Proposed_draftspace_deletion. Pinging @Kvng, SmokeyJoe, and Pburka:. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to make process clearer.

I propose adding one sentence (see green sentence below) to the PROD summary instructions. This instruction is not intended to be a substantive change; it's just a summary of more detailed instructions that appear later in the article. I've seen a number of PROD nominators that have failed to take this step, so hopefully making the instructions clearer will help.

Thank you in advance for your feedback. CUA 27 (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There are three steps to the PROD process

1. To nominate an article, place the {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} tag on the page. This is automatically converted to a {{proposed deletion/dated}} which lists the article in Category:Proposed deletion. The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed article deletion by adding the {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of Article‎}} tag, or other appropriate text.
2. If anybody objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag—see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.
3. The article is first checked and then deleted by an administrator seven days after nomination (or any time after seven days that an administrator reviews the article). It may be undeleted upon request. If the reviewing administrator does not agree with the deletion they may remove the PROD tag instead of deleting the article.

Do we suspect that authors are not informed because nominators are not aware of this advice? I personally suspect it is for other reasons. {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} already includes prominent suggestion and instructions for informing authors. Notification happens automatically when using WP:TWINKLE to nominate. ~Kvng (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally I feel that notifying article authors should be obligatory. Just like notifying prod authors if their prod is declined. Courtesy of this kind is essential for Wikipedia to function. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Response to Kvng: I encountered this about a month ago when an editor tried to PROD an article without telling anyone; when I informed him he ought to let others know, he said he was new to the PROD process and was not aware of this obligation. See here. Hence my modest suggestion to make the instructions even clearer. I don't know to what extent my suggestion will reduce the number of times that someone PROD's an article without telling anyone, but even if it only results in a 5-10% reduction, it would be a change worth making. CUA 27 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok but I find the proposed wording a bit clumsy. Here's a proposed improvement. ~Kvng (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

1. To nominate an article, place the {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} tag on the page. This is automatically converted to a {{proposed deletion/dated}} which lists the article in Category:Proposed deletion. You should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors by adding the {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of Article‎}} tag, or other appropriate text to contributor talk pages.

Kvng — I like your suggestion. I'll wait another day or so to see if anyone wants to chime in. If not, I'll make the proposed change with your wording. If someone doesn't like it, we can go through WP:BRD and reassess. CUA 27 (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Response to Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: I agree with your suggestion. I made the modest proposal above because I view it as uncontroversial and likely to be accepted. If you want to move the needle further on this issue, I would support that. CUA 27 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of PRODded Article

If an article has been proposed for deletion, and is then deleted the seven-day period has expired, is there any specific provision (I don't see one) about the originator restoring the article? On my reading, the article can be prodded again and deleted again after seven days. If the article is deleted after a deletion discussion, a re-creation is eligible for speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

PROD is for uncontested deletions, so if someone else recreates an article on the same name, with the same or different content, it is no longer eligible for PROD and should go directly to AfD unless, of course, it meets a speedy criteria. (Note that recreation of PRODded material is never eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G4, since if it had been previously deleted after a deletion discussion, it would never have been eligible for PROD in the first place). Likewise, there is no prohibition against an author removing a PROD tag from their own creation, although the one originally proposing deletion is welcome and encouraged to nominate the article for AfD since the lightweight, uncontested process proved to be inapplicable. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)