Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proposed deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18: 31 days

This is not the place to propose deletion of an article. Please tag the article in question by following the three steps listed here.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This page was nominated for deletion on 2008 February 13. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Wikipedia:CONTEST listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:CONTEST has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 29 § Wikipedia:CONTEST until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 15:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Contest and WP:CONTESTED have been bundled. Jay 💬 15:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD

Is it considered ok for anyone to remove the prod, including the article subject or their public relations rep? I PRODDed the article Badman_Recording_Co. but it got dePRODded by the founder/business ownerGraywalls (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds to me like it would fall afoul of WP:COI. DonIago (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's ok: "Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag." If you still feel the page should be deleted you should take it to AfD. pburka (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd draw a distinction between the article's creator and the article's subject or someone who works for the article's subject. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might, but policy doesn't. The whole point of this procedure is that it is very simple. If anything needs to be discussed, such as whether the remover has a conflict of interest, then that can be done at AfD or elsewhere. PROD is for uncontroversial deletion without discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to speak for Greywalls, but I imagine the point they were raising is whether it should be acceptable for someone with a COI to de-PROD. DonIago (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be allowable for someone with a COI to de-PROD. PROD is only for non-controversial deletions and if anyone objects it is a controversial deletion. ~ GB fan 16:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems like the most bad-faith of bad-faith de-PRODs, but I'm not going to fight the prevailing view. DonIago (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, this would be an egregious COI problem. COI editors should still be able to comment on the talk page in an attempt to convince others to DEPROD though, or even to post notices at other (appropriate) forums to alert non-COI editors who might have interest in DEPRODing. — HTGS (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A COI editor SHOULD be allowed to remove a PROD. PROD is for where there is no expectation of any discussion. If a COI removes the PROD, take it to AfD and discuss the COI there. If it is agreed that the COI editor is violating the principles of WP:COI, then sanction the COI editor subsequently. Articles are not deleted to punish editors. PROD is for saving time, it is not for generating new complications. Keep PROD simple. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we’re saying different things. I’m not suggesting that a page that has been contributed to by a COI editor should be deleted because of the fact of their contribution; I’m saying that the action of DEPRODing is one that should not be undertaken by a COI editor. Of course deletion should not be a punishment, but that is a separate behavioral concern, and should be dealt with appropriately whether the COI editor was involved in DEPRODing or not.

Simply, the question here is exactly whether the COI editor is violating the principles of WP:COI when they DEPROD. I would hold that it is a similar action to closing an RM or AFD. It is not merely partaking in discussion or editing an article for typos, but it effects an outcome on a strictly biased contention about the page (ie that page’s existence). — HTGS (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understood you, but am referring the a hierarchy that deletion policy is above COI policy. Anyone may remove a PROD, and then PROD may never be again used, the article has to go through AfD. It is irrelevant that the PROD removal may have been contrary to the WP:COI guideline. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion in the Japanese Wikipedia

My main field is not English Wikipedia but Japanese Wikipedia where the policy of proposed deletion is different. In the English Wikipedia, if anyone removes a proposed deletion tag from a page or otherwise indicates an objection, the proposed deletion is canceled. In contrast, the Japanese Wikipedia does not have this rule.

In the Japanese Wikipedia, a few discusses or debates the issue of the proposed deletion, for example, a period of one week, and then decide keep or delete. During a period of the discussion, an objection to the deletion can be expressed.

In middle August, 2023, more than 90% of the proposed deletion leads to the deletion, and this statistics shows that it is rare that the objection prevails. One of the reason involves Japanese culture where debate is not popular at all.

I want to change the polity of the Japanese Wikipedia in the same way as the English Wikipedia. Specifically, the following rule shoule be adopted in the Japanese Wikipedia also: "if anyone removes a proposed deletion tag from a page or otherwise indicates an objection, the proposed deletion is canceled."

However, I do not know a process to change the rule in the Japanese Wikipedia, and I welcome the advice.

PatentAttorneyJp (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PatentAttorneyJp Does Japanese Wikipedia also have an Articles for deletion (AFD) process? The PROD process exists as a rapid, streamlined option to avoid the need for debate, mostly where the proposer expects no opposition. It is intentionally very automatic, with no debate, but with a very quick veto option open to anyone who objects to deleting. What you are describing sounds closer to AFD, which is intentionally longer and involves more debate. If both exist on JP wiki then yes, I would suggest making the PROD easier to veto. If the AFD does not exist, you might like to create a simpler version of the PROD process, and maybe shifting the process of the current PROD to be more involved. One way to do this would be to require a formal close, and not closing the discussion automatically after one week. Sometimes also discussions do just struggle because there aren’t enough people around to participate meaningfully.

Hopefully this makes sense? — HTGS (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:PRODNOM Rule 3 apply to pages who were deleted at AfD?

I have been interpreting for a bit WP:PRODNOM Rule 3's statement of and it is neither currently being, nor has ever been, discussed at AfD/FfD. to mean that pages that were at AfD at any point, even if their AfD was closed as delete and the page recreated, that PROD cannot be used. This is to some extent borne out by placing those articles in Category:Proposed deletions needing attention under the D sort key indicating that D: Articles which have undergone an articles for deletion Discussion. PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD. So I guess am I correct in interpreting that PROD cannot be used even for pages that were deleted at AfD, or am I misintepreting this rule? TartarTorte 17:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. PROD doesn't apply for previously deleted articles. If you suspect that the page is the same as the deleted version, then you can tag it with {{db-g4}} and then take it back to AFD if an admin declines the G4. Iffy★Chat -- 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A problematic situation occurs when a present page appears to be for a topic other than a previously deleted instance.This appears to be the situation with the page currently in the category: without being able to see the prior article, from the AfD discussion it seems to have concerned a BJP party official, whereas the present article describes a literary figure active 30+ years ago. AllyD (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD applies to subjects, not titles, that have not been nominated for deletion (via WP:PROD or WP:AFD) before. If there is any doubt then simply start an AfD discussion. That is never wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it could be useful to enable additional Template:Proposed deletion parameters, to enhance the information and display? In this situation, either the proposer or a subsequent editor could add a comment that their check indicates that a previous AfD was for a similarly named but distinct subject, resulting in a less "shouty" red message in the Prod box when such a parameter is present. It might also be tidier for Prod2 to be bound to the Prod as an additional parameter? AllyD (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New form of PROD proposed

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Request for comment: Unreferenced PROD, which could make a bit more than 100K articles eligible for a new WP:STICKYPROD-like process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the original proposal, the proposer said "This idea will not apply retroactively; i.e.; articles already tagged with {{unreferenced}} would not be subject to this change." AllyD (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AllyD, looking at the original discussion, multiple editors have already said that it really ought to be retroactive. Also, even if a proposer personally opposes something, that doesn't prevent the rest of us from saying that we think it should be retroactive. As for whether he supports using it to delete existing/older articles, see the proposer's comment today, in which he gives an example of using the proposed process to get a 13-year-old article deleted.

If you recall, sticky prod for BLPs started with the same claim that it wouldn't be retroactive. A subsequent RFC changed the rules to make it retroactive (and quite rightly, IMO). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking for previous PRODs

Is there an easy way to check for old PRODs before proposing a page? If so, it might be nice to list that at the Before section. — HTGS (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check the categorisation. Is the talk page in Category:Past proposed deletion candidates? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That category catches only those whose Talk page carries an Old Prod Full template, which has been added more systematically only recently: for example, IvsEdits is omitted. And, by extension, wouldn't catch the second instance of a deleted article. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't have an {{oldprod}} tag on the talk page, the only way to see if it was previously PROD'd is to review the article history. ~ GB fan 12:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an article's history is so long that checking it is a problem then the article probably isn't suitable for PROD anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use history search and look for addition of {{Proposed deletion ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re:This. Is there any way we can get an archive search set up such as the one at AfD so that patrollers can more accurately check. In response to @Phil Bridger, some article histories are extended by long lists of minor edits or bot actions and not everyone who has prodded an article has necessarily left an accurate edit summary. I personally have encountered articles that have been around for decades despite never citing a single source. I think a tool for searching previous PRODs would be helpful for patrolling -- Lenny Marks (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lenny Marks Is it worth taking this to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) maybe? — HTGS (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS. I don't see why it's not worth a shot. It will at least get more engagement than it would here. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]