| Revision as of 07:25, 14 July 2020 editReyk (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,854 edits →RfC on limiting de-PROD to confirmed editors: -yes← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:52, 8 January 2025 edit undoAllyD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers56,895 edits →Dealing with PRODs without correct edit summary: PROD visibility during and after nomination | ||
| (507 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
| {{tmbox | |||
| {{Policy-talk}} | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| {{Old MfD|date='''2008 February 13'''|result='''Keep'''}} | |||
| | text = '''This is not the place to propose deletion of an article.''' Please tag the article in question by following '''the three steps ].''' | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 18 | ||
| |algo = old(31d) | |algo = old(31d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Policy-talk}} | |||
| {{Old MfD|date='''2008 February 13'''|result='''Keep'''}} | |||
| == |
== 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 ] but it got dePRODded by the founder/business owner] (]) 23:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I think "uncontroversial" creates a negative connotation. Maybe "indisputable" provides a neutral tone and a bit more clarity. ] (]) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure that I understand any difference between those words in this context. Can you provide any real examples of where this change of wording would have led to a different result? ] (]) 19:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}}What is negative about "uncontroversial"? It describes the concept quite well. ] (]) 19:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == When this policy is changed... == | |||
| For years ] explicitly and clearly said articles that had previously been considered at an AFD were not eligible for PROD. | |||
| Since then that clear explicit warning has been removed. I spent about twenty minutes searching through the archives of this talk page and I do not see any discussion authorizing this change. | |||
| The wikipedia's success happened by accident, and I think one of our weaknesses is that we let any random contributor edit our policy pages. We are open to good faith contributors changing our policies when they think they are making an innocuous correction. We are open to bad faith contributors changing our policies and claiming they thought their edit was merely an innocuous correction when it was a planned attempt to subvert the consensus of our community. | |||
| What the heck is going on? ] (]) 03:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : Are you looking at a different page? Because it appears quite clear in this bullet: "and it is not, nor has ever been, discussed at AfD/FfD." . <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 04:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Flawed == | |||
| This process is damaging to Misplaced Pages because of the fact that some editors lazily go about plastering tags on articles and confuse lack of content with lack of notability and admins take their judgement at face value. I strongly object to "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." as a rational criteria. So basically we only keep articles people care about saving? What about all of the old film articles etc from non anglophone countries which simply don't have the interest and exposure on here to be developed? Admins seeing an article with tags for notability and a one line stub are going to assume that articles have been corrected identified and delete them when in a lot of cases they can be expanded but we simply don't have the the editors and people willing to put in the time to improve them. Now I'm not saying that there's not a lot of cases when articles really should be deleted but the way it works is deeply flawed. † ] 16:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Is there evidence of a pattern of reviewing Admins just going along with the Prod? I see cases where the Admin declines the Prod on grounds that a full AfD is needed. Sometimes that AfD is initiated, other times the article just defaults to remain. And if the article does get deleted by Prod, after sight by the proposer and an Admin), it can be reinstated via ]. ] (]) 17:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is no way to collect any such evidence or reverse any wrongs without somehow identifying and ]ing articles deleted here. ~] (]) 20:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is there a log of PROD-deleted pages somewhere? | |||
| :::Template {{tl|Proposed deletion}} gives search links for the article name. Perhaps we could automate execution of those searches and analysis of results to score the PROD. It would probably have to be project-specific. A non-notable web company might get more hits than an automatically notable village in Bhutan. ] (]) 20:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here is a snapshot of current PROD articles : ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
| :::The skin I am using shows them all as pink. We could wait until they all clear to blue or red, then do some spot-checks on whether the deleted articles had titles that seem to be valid topics. I don't know if I have the energy for that. ] (]) 01:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, that might work but it does seem a bit exhausting. If we are able to identify a pattern of inappropriate deletions, what's next? Do we go after administrators that are making these mistakes? Do we try to shut down ]? My sense is a good portion of the community sees removing cruft as an important means of improving the encyclopedia. They will not want to have to run everything through AfD. ~] (]) 16:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Kvng}} if we can see common characteristics of articles on topics that seem notable enough but were PROD deleted, then perhaps we could improve the guidelines for nominators or administrators, and perhaps something could be done with bots. Let's wait a week or so. Again, I am not sure I have the energy to investigate more than a small sample. I glanced at one, I forget which, and it seemed a fairly well-sourced article on a company, but the claim was that none of the sources were independent: more an AfD argument than a PROD argument. But the effort of tracking that one down would be about the same as the effort of recreating the article. ] (]) 02:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks Aymatth. {{u|Donaldd23}} is exactly the sort of problem I'm talking about, goes about the site prodding film articles, even if they have plenty of hits in Google books. Basically "it's short" is being used as a deletion rationale and through this leaky process we're losing lots of notable subjects. I've surveyed the system myself, when I've been prodded I've not expanded them and they almost always get deleted. A lot of them I recreated as a start class entry which nobody would have dreamed about deleting. If you have a problem, take an article to FAC and get a fairer assessment. I think it's time this prod template was deleted. Check the deletion log of articles deleted from a prod and you'll be shocked at how much we've lost that could be improved. Prodding is also pointy at the article creator, inferring that only they can expand it, which is contrary to the spirit of collaboration here.† ] 06:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::From the way I see it, PROD is a valuable tool used to get rid of unnecessary clutter on Misplaced Pages. Articles can be created by anyone, and certain users, like ], create these one line stubs for obscure <s>foreign</s> films and then leave them. They sit around for 10 years as just a one line stub, with neither the author (or any other collaborator) making any improvements to them to warrant their existence. At some point during those 10 years, another user comes along, sees this one line, non cited article, and adds a (warranted) notability tag. Another 5 years pass with that tag, and the creator (and no other user) comes along to add anything to this article in an attempt to remove said notability tag. Is Misplaced Pages really better off for having 1000 articles for obscure <s>foreign</s> films that say basically, "This is a 19xx film from xxxxxx. Here is the cast. Here is a random list of songs in the film. And,oh by the way, and I labeled it as a "stub" so you shouldn't PROD it because it is an important film that needs to be kept on Misplaced Pages." Most of these articles don't even have plots! How about NOT creating one line entries for '''EVERY''' film ever made and actually picking one of those films and making it into a valuable addition to Misplaced Pages? ] seems to want to treat Misplaced Pages as IMDB and create a page for every film whether it is noteworthy or not. He is ''calling me out'' for PRODding his stub articles, yet he fails to see that these articles have been stubs since creation 10 years ago! If neither the user or any other user in '''10 years''' can't find the time, "in the spirit of collaboration" to improve these articles, then I (and others) have every right to try and make Misplaced Pages a better place by getting them removed. Not every article I check with a '''notability''' tag I PROD. I add citations to ones that I find and remove the tag. Others I PROD when nothing can be found of substance. ] seems more upset that I PRODded some of their articles for being 10+ year old stubs (that no one collaborated on with them) than they care about actually '''fixing''' these articles. If they were notable, they would have been improved upon by '''someone''' in 10 years of creation/notability tagging, but yet, here they are 10 years later...still stubs that are being questioned. Instead of blaming the PROD process, look to yourself and ask, "Does this article I created 10 years ago really still need to be here if no one else can make a meaningful addition to said article?" The problem isn't PROD, its users that create stubs and then abandon them. ] (]) 11:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your use of the word "foreign" betrays a lack of understanding that this is a world-wide project. The US is foreign to hundreds of millions more people than India. ] (]) 11:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::My apologies. I have stricken the word. I look at '''all''' films with the "notability" tag, regardless of which country they were made in. And, ] claims that the films they created have "plenty of hits in Google books". Instead of coming here and complaining about the PROD process, perhaps they should go to said films and add these citations they claim to have found, then we can check to see if these films have enough discussion in said books to warrant notability, or if they are just passing mentions in said book which don't provide notability. ] (]) 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't much like 1-2 line stubs, but they are mostly harmless. Even a stub may help someone who wants to find out about the topic. It has long been accepted that articles on notable subjects should be kept, regardless of quality. The question here is whether the PROD process is working as intended. ] (]) 11:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{re|Donaldd23}} I hope you appreciate that ] applies at least as much for PRODding as it does at ]. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. You need to do a ] search ''and'' it needs to be obvious from that that no sourcing is available. If you don't do the search and the results are not overwhelmingly negative, you should not be using PROD for these topics. ~] (]) 13:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Donaldd23, no guideline calls for or permits the removal of articles for being "unnecessary" or "clutter". If an article's topic is notable and its content doesn't disqualify it (being about something else entirely, being false or unverifiable or gibberish, being defamatory or a copyright violation or an advertisement or an unsourced ]), it stays. If you feel an editor is creating numerous articles about topics that aren't ''notable'' even after having had this explained to that editor multiple times and after numerous such articles have been deleted for that reason, maybe the ongoing creation of multitudinous articles destined for deletion, wasting many editors' time in the process, merits a report at ]. But, otherwise, there's no action for you to take. ] (]) 13:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| "If they were notable, they would have been improved upon by someone in 10 years of creation/notability tagging" is laughable. You just don't get the extreme systematic bias on English Misplaced Pages which exists against non Anglophone countries, particularly older subjects. There's still very notable African towns I created stubs on 12 years ago with 50,000 inhabitants which haven't been touched. Of course we want the stubs expanded, they were created that way at a time when stub creation seemed the best thing to cover the world more evenly. What might appear "obscure and foreign" to Donald might actually have been very mainstream in the country at that time in history, films starring ] for instance would hardly be obscure. Donald is prodding films starring notable actors in their respective countries which have multiple hits in Google books. If the films genuinely have no sources which can be found and none of the actors have articles, then it might be valid but articles which have coverage in books shouldn't be getting deleted, however stubby. † ] 17:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Then add the citations. ] (]) 18:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Add them or else what? Of course, if instead of your summary command, you'd asked, "If you ''have'' found sources in books, would you please cite them?" you wouldn't have subjected yourself to my "or else what?" ] (]) 19:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Did you not read my comment above where I said, "perhaps they should go to said films and add these citations they claim to have found, then we can check to see if these films have enough discussion in said books to warrant notability, or if they are just passing mentions in said book which don't provide notability." Or did you just read my last comment and decide to interject your opinion? ] (]) 20:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please ]. It can only end in tears. If citations can easily be added to an article to show notability then it is not an uncontroversial candidate for deletion. I have seen other editors act as you have done, ''i.e.'' proposed whole categories for deletion at a rate that shows that only very minimal checks could have been done, and get blocked for it. Don't join them. I see from your talk page that you were encouraged by an editor who thinks that Misplaced Pages would be a better place if all articles about the largest film industry in the world were deleted. Didn't that statement make you realise that you you should not follow such advice, which is nothing short of racist? ] (]) 20:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that I have been a little hasty is nominating a lot of films in a short amount of time. I was simply hoping to help reduce the number of pages included in the ''Film_articles_with_topics_of_unclear_notability'' category. It appears, however, that this is a sensitive category and I (probably incorrectly) thought that eliminating the films from this category by either finding citations and adding them or having them deleted would be for the benefit of Misplaced Pages. Clearly that was not the right approach, as this conversation has proved. I will therefore go through my PRODs of the past few days and remove them. Going forward, if I come across a film that I genuinely think lacks notability, I will propose it for AfD so that a clearer consensus can be made. I would like to add that I do '''not''' think the PROD process is flawed, as the original poster stated. Yes, the PROD tag can be added by anyone, but it can also be removed by anyone. When the PROD tag is added by me using Twinkle, a notification is sent to the creator (unless they specifically told me to '''STOP''' posting to their talk page), so that editor can come along and remove it...no questions asked. That action might be the only flawed part of the process, because only the creator is notified (and anyone following the page). Perhaps the only modification that should be made to the PROD process is that '''anyone''' who has contributed to that particular article also gets notified that a PROD tag was put in place. This would give more editors a chance to either agree with the PROD tag, or disagree with (and thereby removing it or improving the article.) Could that be something that is discussed? I genuinely want Misplaced Pages to be a better place and I hope that this discussion can be the beginning of how to improve PROD. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Well it clearly is flawed if it allows people with a "If they were notable, they would have been improved upon by someone in 10 years of creation/notability tagging" outlook to prod anything they want and not bother with AFD. Most of our Brazilian municipalities are short stubs and have been for up to 14 years. Do we start prodding those because they're unedited so can't be notable?. You're also mistaken if you think this is purely about you, there's a worrying number of editors who wrongly prod or nominate articles for AFD, that 99% of articles created by me end up kept says it all. I simply ask you to search in Google books, stop thinking of the world with an American-centric view and imagine how an article subject would look to somebody in the given country at that period of time, India 1955 or Argentina 1979 etc. If you avoid prodding articles which have multiple book sources and genuinely only root out the real bad eggs it's not a problem. † ] 07:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that any further purpose is served by discussing Donaldd23's specific edits. Occasionally we get an enthusiastic editor who, in quick succession, proposes deletion of articles that have had notability tags on them for a long time, but only occasionally. That is simply a by-product of our "anyone can edit" philosophy which is responsible for this being the world's foremost encyclopedia rather than ] or any other such failed project. The remaining important issue identified here is whether admins check topics properly before deleting articles. ] (]) 09:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Encyclopædius}}, what you just said amounts to "It is clearly flawed if it does this thing that in reality it doesn't do." It ''doesn't'' allow people to do that. If people ''have'' been doing that, then the problem isn't the guidelines, it's a lack of adherence to them by one or more people, and this isn't the place to address that. ] (]) 10:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well it's more than one editor though. The template is being abused and misused in some cases and a cop out from bothering with a full AFD. Most articles of mine which have been prodded were or could have been easily expanded, so something is wrong somewhere. It is a direct criticism of the template because I don't think any editor on here should be allowed to simply mark any article they want for deletion (which isn't spam or controversial) without going through an AFD. For editors who are mass prodding articles I think they should have to earn that right through formal approval like rollback or whatever only when they can be trusted. † ] 11:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again: they ''aren't'' "allowed to simply mark any article they want for deletion". ] already requires editors to perform a proper evaluation of an article before proposing it for deletion. If they aren't doing that, seek remedies applicable to those users' behavior. | |||
| ::::The fact that people ''do'' drive over the speed limit doesn't mean they are "allowed to simply" drive that fast. The appropriate remedy is to penalize speeders, not to eliminate driving. ] (]) 11:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Random break=== | |||
| :Are you stating that you've ''observed'' it happen a lot or you're just concerned that it ''could'' happen that administrators are deleting pages without assessing the rationale given? If it's just a suspicion, it seems to me that you might have run your above experiment on your own to see whether it corroborated your conjecture ''before'' presenting your concern here. ] (]) 16:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Largoplazo}} it was me who sort-of suggested the experiment above, not ]. Before undertaking this tedious task, feedback from editors such as you who are interested in the subject would be valued. Maybe there is a history of prior audits that show the process is working as well as can be expected? Maybe there is a more efficient way to conduct an audit that would give more accurate and useful results? ] (]) 02:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, sorry about that! ] (]) 10:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry to disrupt the experiment but I think one thing that's clearly going on here is a lull in ] participation. After reviewing some of the ], I will be resuming up my suspended PROD patrolling. ~] (]) 14:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::If more patrolling is the solution, and if we have volunteers, that is worth doing. But somehow this reminds me of the stop-again, start-again Hydroxychloroquine trials. It might be interesting to take a random sample of PROD-deleted articles from the list above, have them restored, and then submit them for AfD. So far the deleted ones are: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. Superficial searches suggest that several of these may be notable topics. ] (]) 15:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: See . It must be unusual for a PROD to make the news. ] (]) 14:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, my. But it was a ] deletion, not PROD. Still, is ] now famous in Nigeria? Does this confer sufficient notability to include an article on DESiegel? ] (]) 15:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC), | |||
| :::::It is in the snapshot list above taken from ] as of around 20:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC). It must have been changed to CSD later. The subject is a Nigerian Instagram celebrity, in the news for being arrested in Dubai on 10 June 2020. The PROD may be connected in some way to the arrest. Hushpuppi, aka Aja Puppi and Aja 4, Raymond Igbalode and Raymond Abbas does seem notable. Sadly, DESiegel does not. ] (]) 15:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find the list at ], which seems to be updated every few hours, more useful than the category because it puts PRODs in chronological order. I glance through new PRODs most days but only have the time to pick up a few articles that take my fancy. I'm sure there are others that are notable but I miss. ] (]) 15:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I say run a test for a month and see how many articles which are notable get deleted!† ] 17:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| PROD was originally created because there was a sense that AfD was overwhelmed. Does anyone have an estimate of (a) how many articles are nominated via PROD, (b) how many articles are deleted via PROD, and (c) how may articles are nominated via AfD? I'd be happy to see PROD eliminated if it wouldn't have unintended consequences such as reducing scrutiny on other deletions. ] (]) 17:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::PROD seems to get about 40 nominations a day. The snapshot above seems to show more are decided as Keep than as Delete. AfD lists have about 90 per day, but maybe 40% are relists, so perhaps 50 new AfDs per day. ] (]) 20:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * It strikes me that the level of AfD participation is at a particular low, with items churning through multiple 7-day period in search of discussion input (and with neo-Prod closure as a frequent outcome as a result of low participation). An extra load of cases seems like the last thing that is needed there, and unlikely to provide a strong evidence base for such an experiment. ] (]) 17:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * The snapshot of about 300 PROD nominations given above may be "contaminated" by the numerous movie nominations that triggered this discussion, and by later clean-up by participants in this discussion. Even so, it seems to indicate two distinct and real issues: | |||
| *#Many of the earlier links have turned blue. The PRODs were rejected. The nominators did not understand or chose not to follow the guidelines | |||
| *#A number of the links have turned red, with the article deleted. At least half of these deletions appear to be on notable subjects covered by plenty of independent sources, meaning the closing admins did not check notability of the topics. | |||
| :I can run a less visible test some time in the next few weeks, and report back results. Right now it looks as though the instructions need an overhaul. ] (]) 21:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: No test necessary—you can easily use the history of {{history|User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary}} (mentioned above) to determine the success rate of PRODs listed in any given period. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 21:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Understood, and that gives a measure for the first issue. But I also want to check deleted articles. My preferred approach would be to check a sample and see if I can create reasonably well-sourced short articles with the same title. I would not waste time on any but the most promising. ] (]) 23:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::It doesn't matter how good our instructions are, there will always be editors who do not follow them for whatever reasons. The checks on bad proposals are ] and the administrator who performs the deletion. Per ], administrators are not checking whether the article deserves to be deleted but simply that PROD processes were correctly followed. ] works well when there are enough volunteers manning it. This is not always the case. I have previously proposed that the prod period be extended to two weeks to allow ] to be more effective but this was rejected. ~] (]) 14:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe bad nominations could be discouraged by the patroller sticking a big pink box on the nominator's talk page saying "This PROD was rejected because a quick internet search showed the subject is clearly notable. Before submitting more articles for PROD, please first check notability." Something like that. But of course there will always be editors who just ignore/delete the warning and carry on anyway. | |||
| :::Looking at the 17 June 2020 snapshot of PRODs it seems that someone took a shot at patrolling the first 100-odd articles, many of which turned blue, while more of the remaining articles have turned red, presumably unchecked by anyone. It still seems worthwhile to get some statistics. ] (]) 16:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] of the PRODs I've canceled this month in my patrolling. ~] (]) 13:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::With regards to discouraging bad nominations, placing {{tl|Old prod}} on the articles talk page with the nom's username and explanation of what they did wrong does seem to reduce future bad noms. I am not convinced that a less subtle approach would be more effective. ] is contentious enough as it is. ~] (]) 14:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When we have some stats, we can discuss various possible remedies. I wonder if we have serial bad PRODers? The nominator does not show on {{tl|Proposed deletion/dated}} or in ]. ] (]) 15:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::When deprodding, I often have to dig into article history to figure out who prodded something. Though I haven't noticed any obvious patterns, I've decided the work is worth it. Maybe if we added a required user name field to {{tl|Proposed deletion}}, it would make noms more accountable and improve the quality of nominations. ~] (]) 21:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I think {{tl|Proposed deletion}} just has to include a substituted (?) message like <code><nowiki>"Submitted by {{REVISIONUSER}}"</nowiki></code>. Then maybe ] could show that. ] (]) 23:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{re|Aymatth2}} Do you want to propose something at ]? ~] (]) 16:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Done, at ] ] (]) 17:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Few thoughts. One, there is a lot of data in the prod logs of people using Twinkle and this feature, see ]. It could allow for some statistical analysis, but the problem is the logs are not categorized, so unless you know of some search tool that would list them I would suggest submitting a feature request to Twinkle so that they become categorized somehow. Second, as someone who has been prodding for many years, the issue of whether the PRODs are reviewed is a complex one. I am sure some of my prods were just deleted because the reviewing admin was tired and 'trusted me', some were carefully reviewed before deletion, others were declined on various grounds by admins and non-admins, with declines ranging from very good reasons that convinced me I was in the wrong, to unjustified deprods by clearly COI/SPA creator or POINT-like disruption by hardcore inclusionists deprodding everything in sight just because they can. If I had any comments on how to improve the process, well, I like the idea of more statistical data (including who's prodding, who's deprodding, who's deleting, outcomes, and longitudinal graphs) as well as a feature that would notify editors when their prod is removed, and a public log of deprods as well. Also, deprods should require a rationale; deprods with no rationale IMHO should be auto-reverted by a bot. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 03:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sure you appreciate that prod is set up slanted towards keep for a reason. If a bad prod goes through the article is unlikely to be recovered. If a good prod is canceled, there's always ]. I'm glad to hear that some administrators are giving more than a cursory review before deleting. The problem with doing analysis on how well prod is working is that, unless you're an administrator, much of the useful data ends up in a black hole. It does sound like you're supportive of changes that make it clear who has prodded or deprodded something. That should help us address both inclusionist and deletionist disruption. ~] (]) 16:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Piotrus}} It could be useful to see who has deprodded an article. In theory {{tlx|Old prod |con=userid}} on the talk page gives the information. It would take a non-trivial bot to ensure that this template is present and the parm is filled. We could have the template populate a maintenance category like "Past proposed deletion candidates with unknown contestor", for manual attention. There are 14,705 total articles in ], presumably many with no |con= specified, so to be useful the new category would have to exclude prods before a certain date. | |||
| ::My sense is that a few users sometimes review a sample of articles in the PROD list, de-prodding some with good reason. But most de-prods are by the original author, and may or may not have good reason. And most PROD articles are never reviewed and just get deleted on the expiry date. ] (]) 16:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I think the category for "Past proposed deletion candidates with unknown contestor" would be worth reviewing, as would be "Past proposed deletion candidates with no decline rationale" and ""Past proposed deletion candidates deprodded by the author". But I don't think we have proof for the claim that "most prods who get deleted are never properly reviewed". Per AGF, we should assume most admins do their job... --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 03:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Piotrus}} I will follow up on the change to {{tlx|Old prod}}. The admin job, per ], does not include confirming that the topic fails notability. They just have to check that the process was followed correctly. If you look ] for example, prodded by {{u|Cardiffbear88}}, you will see the closing admin {{u|Explicit}} has simply deleted after 7 days with comment "Expired PROD, concern was: Non notable musician". This is procedurally correct, but suggests only {{u|Cardiffbear88}} has looked at the article. I think this is the typical scenario. ] (]) 13:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{Reply to|Aymatth2}} I'm not quite sure what you mean when you suggest only the user who PRODed an article looked at it. I can't speak for other admins who deal with PRODs, but as far as my own actions are concerned, I don't just delete an expired PROD as evidenced ], ], and ]. ]] 13:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Explicit}} I worded that poorly. I mean that the closing admin does not usually research the subject to confirm lack of notability, and is not required to. They will look at the article and its history. With ] the history showed the PROD was ineligible. With ] a redirect to parent seemed more appropriate. With ] the sourced material showed notability. But ], for example, a poorly written and completely unsourced BLP, was deleted with no attempt to find sources. ] (]) 14:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Kvng}} I agree, my only real issue is when prods are removed in either obvious trolling or pretty obvious COI/POINT or such, and then the necessitate a 'speedy delete' or such AfD due to the technicality that regardless of who challenged them, they have to to AfD. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 03:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Piotrus}} You've had ] with my prod patrolling. Also, you should not be surprised that an author (typically unfamiliar with deletion policy) will try to keep their work. It's not necessarily a COI with the subject but an attachment to the work they've done. I assume there are many cases where the author will be the only active editor on an article's watchlist. If prod patrol doesn't catch it, the nom, author and deleting admin will be the only ones to review the prod. I think it is better if these to go through AfD and author deprods are the path for this. ~] (]) 13:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Piotrus}} The list of Twinkle PROD logs is easily available through a search like . There's also the super-secret ] which stores snippets of PRODed articles, so that even after articles get deleted, non-admins can still use the page history to access the snippets, which should be enough to get the context of what an article was about. It does not however store the sources used, which may have been useful. ] (]) 20:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::The has the snippets for most of the pages {{u|Aymatth2}} has linked in the comment above. ] (]) 20:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Another example of a poorly judged prod by {{u|Koavf}} '']'' enough for a start class article, and that director is really quite notable, and it's missing. I guarantee that the article would have been deleted if I hadn't been around and it's potentially highly productive as it identifies a ton of notable red links.† ] 11:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Koavf's PROD rationale, which was included as well in their AFD rationale, was "No assertion of notability". There is no such basis for deletion. It was no more valid a reason than "Spelling errors". ] (]) 13:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Largoplazo}}, No, it's not. See ] #8. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 01:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Koavf}} Wherein we learn that Koavf has failed to distinguish two distinct things: an article's subject lacking notability (which is what the cited provision is about) and the failure of an article to make an assertion of notability for its subject (which is not what the cited provision is about). ] (]) 01:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Encyclopædius}} Though ... what do you mean by "''Another'' example of a poorly judged prod by Koavf"? Until you wrote that, there'd been no mention of Koavf in this whole discussion. Are you confusing two different editors (the other one being Kvng) whose names happen to begin with K and have a V followed by another consonant in them? ] (]) 13:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : I mean it's another example of the template being a threat to content because it's not being used correctly.† ] 13:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Encyclopædius}}, ] See #8. You don't know what you're talking about. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 01:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Another break=== | |||
| I have no problem with the Proposed Deletion process in general, but it is alarming when it's just the same one or two users prodding as many C-class articles as they can find within a narrow topic area within a very short timespan, clearly without doing any assessing and using the same copy/paste rationales on each and every one. Particularly when this, in turn, leads to a copious amount of AfD pages within a short time span. Which in turn leads to them being closed within a short period of being open. Which leads to it mainly being the same rotating cast of people voting on each one, which later gets used as an illusionary "success rate" to justify continuing the same process.<br>It's even more concerning when you point out an objective factual error in one of the rushed nominations, find significant third party coverage, or express genuine concerns with the way the AfDs are being handled, and are met with deflection, aggression, dishonesty, and are blatantly strawmanned and ] simply for doing so. Something like this actually happened not too long ago and it's not the only case like it. ''']]]''' 07:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I've been patrolling prods for some time and certainly agree that the process is flawed. But, in this, it is like everything in Misplaced Pages which follows ] quite well as "]". Wringing our hands about this is not productive. What I'd find useful is tools to help ] the tags. Currently, I use ] but this just lists the article titles alphabetically without any context or clues. I scan the list looking for titles which are self-explanatory and which seem to have merit. But some titles, such as people's names, are not much help and it would be quite a chore to click through and check them out, so I only do this when the name strikes a chord with me. The NPP has a ] which provides context and info about the new pages in its queue. The prod patrol could use something like that and maybe it already exists? ]🐉(]) 13:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* I looked around and found there's a good tabulation of the open PRODs at ]. This includes the short description and prod reason and, in most cases, that's enough information for triage. I'll try using that rather than ] for a while and see how it goes. ]🐉(]) 16:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm generally not a fan of PRODs, since I'd prefer to have only speedy delete and AFD. However, it seems like AfD participation is quite low at the moment, so PROD could be an alternative for relatively noncontroversial ones. Still generally not a fan, since I've seen several PRODs who were in fact notable. ~''''']'' <sup>(]/])</sup>'''~ 19:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Divisive topics=== | |||
| As another topical example of the abuse of this process, see . The deletion of this topic is clearly not uncontroversial, as one can see from the following ]. The editor who placed the PROD has limited experience of the English Misplaced Pages and so perhaps misunderstood the process. There should perhaps be a confirmation and warning process to ensure that people who place PRODs understand that they are only supposed to be used in uncontroversial cases and so they are not appropriate for debatable or divisive topics. ]🐉(]) 19:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :It is not hard to identify and address bad PRODs. The problem is that someone has to take the initiative to do it. There appear to have times when there are not enough active ]ers to do this. Although we understand that some go above and beyond, administrators are not required to assess the merit of a PROD before deleting. ~] (]) 17:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sample study== | |||
| See ] for a list of articles that were in ] as of about 21:01, Friday, June 26, 2020 (]). | |||
| All have now (July 4, 2020) been resolved one way of another. | |||
| The list gives the article name, the userid who nominated it for PROD, the outcome (e.g. kept, deleted, moved to draft, merged, redirected), the closing admin, the PROD concern, an excerpt from the article lead, and notes. | |||
| This is a small sample, so any conclusions drawn from it must be considered tentative. | |||
| '''Statistics''' | |||
| :{|class=wikitable | |||
| |Total articles: || 146 | |||
| |- | |||
| |Kept: || 35 | |||
| |- | |||
| |Deleted: || 108 | |||
| |- | |||
| |Merged or redirected: || 3 | |||
| |- | |||
| |Moved to Draft: || 1 | |||
| |} | |||
| '''Typical article quality''' | |||
| *Almost all the articles were poor quality, with few or no cited sources and with little indication of notability. Many were no more than stubs | |||
| '''Nominators''' | |||
| *Some users nominated several articles: {{u|Cardiffbear88}} (25), {{u|Boleyn}} (7), {{u|Piotrus}} (6), {{u|Bovineboy2008}} (5), {{u|Premeditated Chaos}} (4), {{u|Mean as custard}} (3), {{u|Namiba}} (3), {{u|Whisperjanes}} (3), {{u|Ali.shaila}} (2), {{u|Atlantic306}} (2), {{u|DoubleGrazing}} (2), {{u|GPL93}} (2), {{u|HawkAussie}} (2), {{u|John from Idegon}} (2), {{u|Koridas}} (2), {{u|Pontificalibus}} (2), {{u|Revirvlkodlaku}} (2), {{u|Rogermx}} (2), {{u|Synoman Barris}} (2), {{u|Ugbedeg}} (2) and {{u|Willsome429}} (2). | |||
| *Multi-nomination users accounted for 82 articles, more than half the total. A user may specialize in identifying PROD candidates and submitting well-researched nominations. | |||
| *Nine articles were nominated by IPs. It seems likely (due to similarity in concern and subject area) that in some cases the same person used several IPs. | |||
| '''Pattern of actions''' | |||
| *Although the list does not show this, a fairly consistent pattern of actions was visible over the 7-day period. | |||
| **At the start of each day (]) a large number of articles had been resolved by an administrator, often {{u|Explicit}} (93), {{u|GB fan}} (14) or {{u|Muboshgu}} (8). Most of these were deletions with a comment like:<code>Expired PROD, concern was: .</code> A few PRODs were declined on technical grounds | |||
| **Sometimes a small set of articles were kept, with the PROD removed by a user such as {{u|Kvng}} (4), {{u|Pburka}} (4), {{u|Atlantic306}} (3), {{u|Andrew Davidson}} (2) or {{u|David Eppstein}} (2). These appear to be editors who sometimes patrol the PROD queue | |||
| **Other articles, such as ], ] or ] had the PROD tag removed by the author or other editor who had been involved in creating and maintaining the article. | |||
| **Soon after the PROD was removed, the article might be nominated for AfD. At time of writing 10 of the 35 kept articles are in AfD: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. | |||
| *The general impression is that most articles were not reviewed by a patroller. If the author or another involved editor did not act, the article would usually be deleted. | |||
| '''Quality of PRODs''' | |||
| *As stated above, most of the articles were poor quality, so little would be lost by their being deleted. However, if the subject was notable, an editor starting a fresh version would be confronted by a forbidding warning like: | |||
| <div style="margin-left:2em;"class="warningbox mw-warning-with-logexcerpt mw-content-ltr" dir="ltr" lang="en"><p><b>A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.</b> | |||
| </p><p>If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. | |||
| </p><ul> | |||
| <li data-mw-logid="109444479" data-mw-logaction="delete/delete" class="mw-logline-delete"> 00:44, 4 July 2020 ] (] |]) deleted page ] (Expired ], unsourced ] (]) )</div> | |||
| :This could discourage creation of articles on notable topics that were incorrectly deleted. | |||
| :A random sample of deleted articles that seemed as though they could be on notable subjects turned up several. Whatever one's views on notability of aristocrats, ], Grand Duke of Lithuania, is covered by various sources. The ] is well-covered by the local newspapers. The ] drew extensive commentary from international medical journals. The Bulgarian version of ], ] has 42 citations, some of which must be enough to prove notability (this may be an example of poor results with searches where the script is not Latin. ] (]) may be another). And so on. | |||
| ] (]) 17:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Recommendations=== | |||
| Following is a first cut list. Please vote {{Aye}}, {{Nay}} or {{Not sure}}, comment, and add more ideas. | |||
| ====Improve instructions on "Before nomination" ==== | |||
| Formalized and moved to ] ] (]) 16:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ====Require notability check on BLPPROD==== | |||
| {{Archive top | |||
| |result = As pointed out, ] is a separate process. In fact, the instructions already say "Before nomination: ... Consider finding reliable sources yourself (See also WP:BEFORE)." ] (]) 11:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| |status = withdrawn}} | |||
| ] has special rules: the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. The instructions should state that ] applies. If a source for the biography can be found, it should be added rather than nominate the article for BLPPROD. This does not preclude nominating for standard PROD. | |||
| {{Aye}} ] should apply to all PRODs to ensure articles on notable subjects are kept. ] (]) 18:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} BLPPROD is really a separate process that is outside of the scope of this discussion. ] (]) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Aye}} support as it makes it clear what is best practice, ] (]) 00:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} As Pburka points out, BLPPROD is different enough from normal PROD that this discussion doesn't pertain. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| ====Improve reports==== | |||
| ], ] and ] should be upgraded to show the user who submitted the PROD. | |||
| {{Aye}} This may help improve accountability. ] (]) 17:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * ] now displays the proposing user when captured following a recent template change. ] (]) 17:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Aye}} I support editor accountability and stuff that's already been implemented. ~] (]) 19:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I've also updated the sorting report to also include an excerpt from the article. ] (]) 10:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **That is a huge improvement. It makes it much easier to get a sense of what the article is about and whether it might have potential. ] (]) 12:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ====Require de-PROD rationale==== | |||
| {{Archive top | |||
| |result = There is clearly no support for this suggestion. If discussion is needed, AfD is the place for it. ] (]) 11:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| |status = rejected}} | |||
| A bot should review edits that removed a PROD template, and automatically revert them if they have no edit summary. | |||
| Where there is an edit summary, it should be added as |conreason= to the {{tl|Old prod}} template on the article talk page, with the de-PROD editor added as |con= to this template. | |||
| {{Not sure}}. It seems like a difficult thing to do accurately. Yes if it can be done easily. ] (]) 17:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} Deprodding should be as simple as possible. This will have the effect of penalizing new editors for technicalities. ] (]) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} This is an amalgam of two proposals - the 1st to forbid Prod removal without an Edit Summary, the 2nd storing that Edit Summary. The question of whether a rationale should be required has been discussed before (for example in ]). Desirable as a rationale is, as indeed is an Edit Summary for any edit, any contestation indicates that a Prod is not uncontroversial. It is also possible that substantial content and references added in the same edit would be reverted: an undesirable effect. ] (]) 20:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} PRODs are only for uncontroversial deletions and so do not provide for debate. Per ], we should "''Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content''" as "''This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!''". If editors want a debate or discussion, they should start an AfD, which is designed for that purpose. Bots should be kept right out of this as they are mindless automata. ]🐉(]) 21:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} as mentioned it could remove content added in the same edit ] (]) 00:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} a pattern unjustified deprodding should be handled as ]. Otherwise ] and initiatiate discussion at ] - the D in AFD, does stand for ''discussion'', doesn't it? ~] (]) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| ====Limit PROD to CONFIRMED editors==== | |||
| Formalized and moved to ] below. ] (]) 16:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ====Limit PROD to new / low activity articles ==== | |||
| You often find articles which are 10 years old being nominated for PROD. During those many years, you commonly find that the articles have been read by many people and edited by numerous experienced editors. Any article which has survived inspection for such a long period should never be PRODed. This is where some mechanical device would be appropriate. The prod template might be coded to self-destruct in such cases, perhaps. ]🐉(]) 22:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Not sure}} I've certainly seen 10 year old articles that would be uncontroversial at AFD, but I think they're probably fairly rare. I'm leaning towards supporting this, but need to stew on it. I might make the criteria 'or' instead of 'and': older than ''n'' years, '''or''' edited by more than ''m'' people, ... ] (]) 00:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Discussion formalized and moved to ] (below) ] (]) 16:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ====New category from PRODs with no talk page==== | |||
| Change {{tl|Proposed deletion/dated}} to check whether the article has a talk page, and if not to add it to ], a maintenance category. Interested editors could check articles in this category and create talk page entries with suitable projects. Bots such as AAlertBot would then update WikiProjects with alerts about articles within their scope proposed for deletion. (Suggested by {{u|Pburka}}) | |||
| {{Aye}} Seems easy to implement, and if it helps improve review of PRODs, it is good. ] (]) 12:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Clarification'''. It's not just the absence of a talk page. It's the absence of WikiProjects, or too few WikiProjects. Obviously an article with no talk page is in no WikiProjects, but the talk page might exist and still have no or few (e.g. only WP:Biography) WikiProjects. ] (]) 19:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*It is easy for {{tl|Proposed deletion/dated}} to include a check like <code><nowiki>{{#ifexist:{{TALKPAGENAME}} | | ]}}</nowiki></code>, but considerably more difficult to check that there are no or "few" WikiProjects on the talkpage, probably something that would require a bot. I think some projects are usually added when the talk page is added, although obviously this is not always true and there may well be missing projects. Perhaps we should go for the easy one first, then add the harder one after? ] (]) 21:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Pburka}} See ], populated automatically. A lot better than nothing. ] (]) 12:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ====Disqualify PRODs of articles which exist in other Wikipedias==== | |||
| If a topic exists in the Wikipedias of other languages too then this is a good clue that it is likely to be valid. For a fresh example, see the nomination of ] for deletion when the topic exists in 10 other languages too. Of course, it's not a sure sign but it seems enough to take us out of the "uncontroversial" zone. ]🐉(]) 10:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{nay}} Bad idea. Other wikipedias have different inclusion requirements and standards to ours, some of them very lax. You might as well say we shouldn't PROD something if it's on Wikia or TVtropes. ] <sub>]</sub> 11:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{nay}} (1) This is a corollary to ]. (2) Every Misplaced Pages has its own rules and consensuses. (3) There is no magic that hinders an obviously invalid article from being posted to multiple Wikipedias. ] (]) 11:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{nay}} However it might be worth improving ] to include links to other versions of the page. While the simple existence of a page in another language doesn't mean much, the pages are good starting points for finding sources, especially for non-English topics. ] (]) 16:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Not sure}} I think this needs to include the idea of "non-trivial, sourced versions in other wikipedias". If an unsourced 2-line stub on a Greek singer has a matching unsourced 2-line stub in the Greek wiki, that does not prove much. But if editors in other language versions have made the effort to develop o.k. articles on the subject, deleting it from the English wiki is not uncontroversial and at least deserves an AfD. ] (]) 18:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Andrew Davidson}} That would certainly have worked for ], which has significant sourced articles in several wikis but was deleted anyway. ] (]) 14:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion of study=== | |||
| *'''Question:''' Did you distinguish between PROD and BLPPROD in the study? ] was deleted under the latter, which I think is outside of the scope of this discussion. ] (]) 17:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **No, I did not separate them out. They all go into ]. Presumably ] applies to them all, and a check on ] would have thrown up several that could have been added to the article as an alternative to PROD. Perhaps a recommendation like that should be added above. ] (]) 17:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***BLPPROD does not require BEFORE as I understand it. ] (]) 17:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ****I just added a recommendation that it should. ] (]) 18:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *****As someone who remembers the bad faith, on both sides, in the discussions that led up to ] being introduced I don't think it should be included in any proposal here. It is a separate process that should be discussed separately at ]. ] (]) 18:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Bots such as AAlertBot update WikiProjects with alerts about articles within their scope proposed for deletion. This only works if articles are added to projects. I've seen many pages in PROD which don't even have a talk page. Would it be reasonable to require (mechanism TBD) that pages be added to WikiProjects before they can be PRODded? (The proposer could add the projects themself.) ] (]) 00:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Pburka}} the idea of notifying the projects makes a lot of sense to me. I cannot see an easy way to require the twinkling prodder to make a talk page and assign the article to the correct projects, when they think it is uncontroversial to delete it. We could add the article to "Category:PROD articles with no talk page" though, and perhaps a bot could add project notifications for PROD articles that do have talk page projects. Maybe other editors could chime in with ideas? ] (]) 00:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Pburka}} I have made a suggestion at ]. ] (]) 12:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Since my name was mentioned in the study: I do try to patrol the prod queue using ] on a faster-than-weekly basis (often enough to see all prods before they expire) but only with specific classes of articles in mind (biographies of academics or articles about mathematical topics) and I skip over most prods where the article title or prod reason makes it obvious that they are not in that class. Most of the prods I see are appropriate but a noticeable fraction of them are bad (subject obviously notable or ] turns up sources easily) and I unprod those when I see them. On occasion the prod queue has articles a day or two past expiration and when I see this I will handle the expired prods without regard to topic. When I do handle them, I check the history for previous attempts at deletion and generally also do some ] in the form of superficial Google searches for available sources for improvement instead of deletion; nevertheless, most end up being deleted. I have no idea whether the admins who handle expired prods more frequently than I do it more or less thoroughly than that. —] (]) 04:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::As far as I know, the closing admins do not research whether the articles are about notable subjects, but just check that the process has been followed correctly. It would not be reasonable to ask them to also do a complete ] check. In theory the nominator has already confirmed that the deletion is non-controversial, and nobody has objected after 7 days, so it gets deleted without any further review. ] (]) 12:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I've opened a thread about respecting WP:BEFORE at ] . It should be drilled into everybody who either prods or nominates articles.† ] 06:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's a section link: ] ~] (]) 20:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question'''- are people expecting the results of this "discussion" to be binding? If so, formulate it as an RfC and announce it properly at the relevant noticeboards. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **{{ping|Reyk}} Some of these ideas are going nowhere, but some seem quite promising. I would prefer not to start all over again elsewhere without the context of the discussions and sample study that preceded the proposals. Most people interested or involved in the PROD process will be aware of these discussions. What do you suggest as the most efficient way to proceed? ] (]) 22:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::One step, perhaps, would be to move the more promising sections down, including current comments, make them L2 sections, then add {{tlx|rfc|policy}} after each heading. Would that be sufficient? ] (]) 22:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''I call shenanigans'''- there's quite a bit misleading about this "study", particularly the statistics on articles that were "kept". Several of these were BLPPRODs, which is a different process. Others have since been deleted at AfD: usually uncontroversially, so I would argue that deprodding them was unjustified. These are now being used as "evidence" that a lot of PRODed articles get retained on Misplaced Pages. I say it's a misleading and skewed use of statistics. If this is the evidence that PROD has a "problem" that can be solved by removing human thought and replacing it with a proddeclinebot, then anyone voting in favour has been hoodwinked. ] <sub>]</sub> 14:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **{{ping|Reyk}} PROD is for articles where there will be no controversy about deletion, and AfD is for articles where some discussion is warranted. The study showed that about 25% of PRODs are in fact controversial, so should have taken the AfD route. Some of the deleted articles were on notable subjects, so should not have been proposed at all. The discussion is about ways to improve the process and reduce the number of errors. | |||
| *:If we removed the PROD process altogether, articles could still be deleted via AfD. The truly uncontroversial ones would not take much effort. ] (]) 14:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***LOL. A spammer taking a PROD off his own advertising billboard, or some IP the process, in no way makes deleting the article "controversial". What absolute nonsense. The fact that PRODs can be removed for any reason no matter how daft, or no reason at all, means that there's always going to be some number of unjustifiable deprods. That in no way reflects badly on the person who placed the PROD originally, or on the process, and is certainly no argument to restrict who can place them. PROD has for years kept large numbers of hopeless articles from clogging up AfD, it's a necessary maintenance mechanism that works well, and none of this misleading statistical argumentation changes that. ] <sub>]</sub> 15:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==Donald continues to make poorly judged prods== | |||
| . If he continues to abuse this template I think he should be banned from using it. {{u|Phil Bridger}} and {{u|AllyD}} were fortunately around to salvage them. I wish he'd stop editing so many articles, slow down, and work on just a few and deal with the issues himself instead of plastering tags all over them.† ] 11:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC on Limiting PROD to new / low activity articles == | |||
| {{rfc|policy|rfcid=D5A48E3}} | |||
| Articles should automatically be rejected from PROD if they are older than 5 years or have been edited by more than 10 editors, since any article which has survived inspection for such a long period or by so many editors should never be PRODed. ] (]) 00:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Here's a recent example – ] – which was prodded because "" You'd have thought it would be obvious that it just needed some attention but we had to do it the ] too. ]🐉(]) 13:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Aye}} For the reasons given. ] (]) 22:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Aye}} as there is A7 for non notable one line stubs ] (]) 00:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Aye}} with a few tweaks, e.g. bots don't count towards editors. ] (]) 19:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} Certainly not for older articles. The fact is that a lot of spam, walled garden cruft, and buzzword salad created in Misplaced Pages's early years is still around. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Aye}} This is a potentially controversial proposal. I have seen prod used by experienced good faith editors to delete ]s. The fact that we're likely to argue about this indicates that AFD, not prod, is the correct venue for them. ~] (]) 20:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Aye}} PROD is an expedient, conveniently used for recently created articles that clearly don't pass muster. But it's just a nice-to-have, not essential, so it doesn't take much for me to lean toward a presumption of the level of doubt that would require AFD to delete an article. If an article's been around for years or if many people have edited it without questioning its value, then require AFD. ] (]) 12:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - PROD is fine as it is, limiting it is pointless and goes against the whole point of PROD! ]] 16:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **What is the point of PROD in your opinion? I thought PROD was intended to be strictly limited. ] (]) 17:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***It's supposed to be on non-controversial deletions of articles, that won't be challenged. Why does age/number if editors impact on that? (I'll give ya a clue - it doesn't). ]] 17:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} I'm not sure why we would assume that an old article is a good article, nor how the number of editors who've worked on it is pertinent if their edits have not qualitatively improved the article, especially if they are editors who were excited about the article at inception but have since abandoned it. ] (]) 17:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' the fact an article is old means nothing, it's still perfectly possible for an old article to be a good PROD candidate. I've seen articles which survived for years despite being clear A7 or G11 candidates. It just means that nobody noticed. Being edited by ten different people also means nothing as most articles get occasional edits from people reverting vandalism, fixing template syntax, and other minor changes. If an article is actually being regularly edited then the existing policy already implies that PROD is a bad idea, as opposition should be expected. ''''']''''' 18:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **Being old does not mean an article is worth keeping, but we can assume that a fair number of people will have come across it over the years, and so far none of them have thought it should be deleted. Deletion may therefore be assumed to be controversial, so PROD is the wrong approach. ] (]) 18:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***I wouldn't assume a relationship between the age of an article and the number of people who've read it, much less the number who've read it and would be inclined to set up a PROD. I see lots of (what I consider) junk articles, and junk in articles, that I don't address for one reason or another. ] (]) 18:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ****Most old articles, even on obscure topics, are viewed by a surprising amount of people. Deletion of an article that has survived a long time is not clearly uncontroversial, even if the article as it stands is junk. It can be submitted to AfD. ] (]) 19:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *****I have to disagree, the mere fact an article is old does not mean a number of experienced editors have seen it and decided not to delete it. If you doubt this then have a look at the number of ], which would surely be an excellent reason to nominate something for deletion. Obscure articles simply don't get much scrutiny here. ''''']''''' 19:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ******It would be useful to have some statistics. I checked ], an article on a tiny village in Scotland I started long ago, and found it averaged 129 page views per day this year with 29 editors since 2008 not counting IPs and bots. ] also gets 129 views per day with 106 editors since 2009. Sadly, ] gets only 16 views per day, although it has had 12 editors since 2015. | |||
| *****:The point is not that all old articles have been scrutinized, just that a lot of them have. The 5 year / 10 editor test would cut out a lot of PRODs that really are controversial, at the expense of forcing some that are not to go the AfD route. There would be a significant reduction in incorrect deletions. ] (]) 21:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *****:*Reader counts don't mean anything because the vast majority of people who read Misplaced Pages don't edit it, and most of the people who do edit it wouldn't know how to nominate something for deletion or what our inclusion standards are. The fact someone's edited something also doesn't mean they're likely to object to a PROD. Your "29 editors since 2008 not counting IPs and bots" includes , and , for example. There's no reason whatsoever to believe those people would care in the slightest. What does reduce the chance of PROD being appropriate is whether an experienced editor has reviewed the article and decided that it isn't appropriate to nominate it for deletion, but that's a lot harder to tell and a lot less likely to happen. ''''']''''' 07:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *****:**Exactly. I have done quite a bit of maintenance work- typo fixes, grammar cleanup, and the like. When I do this stuff I don't always read the whole article or evaluate any other problems it might have. I would not want the fact that I visited or edited an article to be interpreted as evidence that the article is A-OK. ] <sub>]</sub> 08:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', concur with above opposes. ] 19:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. The age of an article has no bearing on how many people might have seen it during its lifetime. There are some corners of the project where a nearly orphaned article might not get any non-automated page views for extended periods of time. Number of editors might be a better criterion to use for restriction, assuming it were limited to non-bot, perhaps auto-confirmed editors, but one would also assume that active editors on a given article would see the PROD and vet it appropriately. "Just because nobody thought to delete it yet means that it's not worth deleting" is an assumption I dislike baking into a policy. –] (]) 01:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - What we are trying to do here is identify some feature of an article that indicates its deletion is ] to be controversial. Longevity and number of editors are being considered here as indicators. Another indicator I use frequently in ] is the number of incoming wikilinks. The deletion of an article with even one link to it is much more likely to be controversial than deleting an orphaned article. ~] (]) 17:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **The RfC as worded isn't suggesting using longevity and number of editors as indicators of whether a PROD is appropriate; it's pushing for summary rejection of PRODs based on those factors. If the proposing editor intended to discuss what indicators we should look at to determine whether a PROD is likely to be controversial, they could have done so without an RfC and with language that encouraged discussion rather than action. ] (]) 18:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{ping|Doniago}} This started with a long discussion at ] (above), followed by ] (above) to get some facts. The study showed about 25% of PRODs turn out to be controversial, while a number of articles on notable subjects are not checked and get deleted. The study was followed by an invitation for suggestions at ] (above). This proposal came from {{U|Andrew Davidson}} and gained enough initial support to seem worth turning into an action-oriented RfC. Several contributors are looking for properties of an article that indicate deletion may be controversial, so AfD is the appropriate route. There will be cases where the properties are misleading and there will be no controversy. It is a balancing act: | |||
| ***:Tight rules = fewer incorrect PRODs, higher AfD costs, including some AfDs where PROD really would have been suitable | |||
| ***:Loose rules = more incorrect PRODs, lower AfD costs | |||
| **:To me, the AfD cost for an uncontroversial deletion should be low. It is more important to avoid deleting articles on notable subjects where possible. ] (]) 20:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} '''Oppose''' With over 6,000,000 articles, there's a lot of complete junk that goes unseen (]) and ignored for a decade or more, and that doesn't necessarily mean that it's any more notable or encyclopedic than a newer article. | |||
| *'''Comment''': Here's a concrete example of an article that was PRODded yesterday that would have been protected by this rule: ]. The page is nearly 14 years old and has about 30 non-bot, non-IP editors by my count. A page edited by so many people over such a long period of time shouldn't be deleted without discussion. ] (]) 16:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose:''' Both proposals. PRODs can already be challenged and removed by any editor. I do not see what this would accomplish. Maybe if the proposal was {{green|"Years-old articles with more than 10 editors, but less than 30 watchers"}}, but even then... ''']]]''' 20:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Opppose''' There is a lot of garbage that is unreferenced, fails GNG and needs a prod, but is so old it has a bunch of technical edits in their history. Bad idea. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 01:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Alternative 1 === | |||
| Articles should automatically be rejected from PROD if they have been edited by more than 20 editors (other than IPs and bots), since deletion of any article which has survived inspection by so many editors can never be uncontroversial. ] (]) 12:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Aye}} For the reasons given. ] (]) 12:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} As I said earlier, I often do spelling and punctuation fixes. When I do, I don't always look at the whole article. The idea that fixing a typo amounts to a seal of approval is actually pretty insulting. I'm also concerned that all these proposals seem geared towards taking away editor discretion and replacing it with rote, stupid, bright-line rules. Anything that removes human thought from the process should be opposed. ] <sub>]</sub> 13:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Note that the proposal says "20 editors", not "1 editor". The idea is that once 20 different editors have been through an article, there's sufficient reason to assume it's been through the scrutiny of enough people for a deletion proposal no longer to be ''assumed'' to be uncontroversial. PROD is a convenience. It's hardly a hardship to make it unavailable in cases like this. ] (]) 13:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's still a stupid idea. Most schemes to replace human thought with mechanised rules turn out to be stupid, and this is no exception. No doubt the idea is to count the article creator, hopefully multiple times if they edit under multiple IPs, and count bots fiddling with categories and maintenance templates, and count vandals and their rollbackers among the 20. The more people you can get into the snout count without the article contents ever passing through a human brain the better. ] <sub>]</sub> 13:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm sure if consensus goes against this proposal we'll get an "Alternative 2" for auto-rejecting PRODs that have had 50 editors, then 100, then 200, ad infinitum. ] <sub>]</sub> 15:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::You've undermined your own argument with "most schemes to replace human thought with mechanised rules turn out to be stupid". The point of the alternative here is that at least 20 humans have had the opportunity to think about it. You're insisting that even after those 20 humans have had the opportunity to think about it, we should allow a single person to trigger an article's deletion, in the event that no one contests it, rather than submitting the matter to formal discussion, to find out whether many human thoughts are expressed agreeing with you on deleting the article despite its apparent staying power. ] (]) 16:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I thought we'd gotten past the silliness that is "an edit is a keep vote!!!! a page view is a keep voet!!!1!" a decade ago when most of the old guard ARS chuckleheads got themselves banned. As I keep saying, fixing a typo or changing a category says ''nothing'' about the editor's intentions or thoughts except to fix that typo or fiddle with that category. Imagine the absurdity when article has had exactly twenty editors. Are we going to tell someone, "Welp, if not for this one guy changing 'doe snot' into 'does not' back in 2016 it could have been PRODded. But too bad, now we have to deprod it!". There is no getting around the fact that this is a stupid idea. ] <sub>]</sub> 19:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This does not mean the article is worth keeping. It just means that if 20 or more editors have made changes to it, and none have proposed deletion, a PROD may well be controversial and AfD would be the better route. If deletion really is non-controversial, it will fly through AfD. ] (]) 21:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Again (and reread this as many times as necessary): We aren't talking about ''an'' edit, we're talking about edits by a lot of editors. | |||
| :::::We aren't even talking about any of 20 editors touching a page amounting to a ''keep'' vote. We're talking about it amounting to doubt that a deletion request can be assumed to be uncontroversial (which ''is a requirement for a PROD nomination'')—in the way that sometimes somebody who doesn't deny the non-notability of a topic removes a PROD tag anyway owing to a sense that the situation isn't clear-cut enough to justify evading a discussion. ] (]) 21:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Drop the condescension. ] <sub>]</sub> 22:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"Condescension" implies telling someone something the person likely already knows. It isn't condescension to address the issue of someone repeating arguments that the other person has already dispensed with when that person actually has repeated an argument that was already dispensed with. ] (]) 23:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's clear that you are neither understanding a word I've said, nor arguing in good faith. Do not ever contact me again, about this matter or any other. Good day. ] <sub>]</sub> 23:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} Assigning an arbitrary number of editors after which an article can't be PRODed is...well, pointlessly arbitrary. If nobody substantively edits an article for ten years, I don't care how many people edited it before that. ] (]) 02:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC on limiting PROD to CONFIRMED editors == | |||
| {{rfc|policy|rfcid=C882E86}} | |||
| PROD assumes some familiarity with Misplaced Pages's policies and conventions, and users are expected to be able to judge whether or not a deletion would be non-controversial. IP editors and new editors should be limited to AFD, which guarantees some level of review. PROD should be limited to confirmed, or perhaps extended confirmed editors. (Not sure how this would be enforced, technically.) <small>Proposed by ] (]) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| {{Aye}} Either prevent the edit from saving, or have a bot remove the prod. ] (]) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Aye}} Same reasons as Pburka. Given the general lack of notability review, PRODs by unconfirmed users are risky. ] (]) 20:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} There are some experienced editors who prefer to edit anonymously using an IP address and, like it or not, this is well-established as valid. As PRODs are supposed to be completely uncontroversial, there is no reason to discriminate against particular classes of editor. ]🐉(]) 21:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Andrew Davidson}} PRODs are supposed to be completely uncontroversial, but in the sample 35 out of 148 were contested, and it seems likely that more would have been contested if anyone had checked them. The reality is that they often are controversial. ] (]) 21:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed. If a prod is actually controversial then it should be rapidly removed by any feasible mechanism. For example, you often find articles which are 10 years old being nominated for PROD. During those many years, you commonly find that the articles have been read by many people and edited by numerous experienced editors. Any article which has survived inspection for such a long period should never be PRODed. This is where some mechanical device would be appropriate. The prod template might be coded to self-destruct in such cases, perhaps. ]🐉(]) 22:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like that idea a lot. See next item, below, which you just wrote. ] (]) 22:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Andrew Davidson}} Veteran editors who choose to edit as IPs give up a number of privileges: they can't create article, move articles, or edit semi-protected articles. I don't see an obvious reason why proposing articles for almost-unscrutinized deletion is substantially different than these other things. They'd still be able to delete articles; just not through the deletion process with the least oversight. (In fact, even in AFD, the opinions of IP or unconfirmed editors are often given less weight. We even have a template to call attention to them: ].) ] (]) 00:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was mistaken: IP users can't create AFD pages. ] (]) 13:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{aye}} as it is currently easy for sockpuppets to nominate hundreds of articles with no rationale and no notice to the page creator. Last year there was a dynamic ip nominating about 60 prods a day over about a fortnight all on the same topic - Saudi Arabia, ] (]) 00:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :That sounds to me like it would fall afoul of ]. ] (]) 01:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{aye}} If IP editors are not allowed to use AFD, it is reasonable to prevent them from using PROD. Prod patrollers could deprod these until we figure out a way to do it automatically. A quick look at ] should convince anyone that this is not something a new editor should start with. ~] (]) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ] (]) 02:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd draw a distinction between the article's creator and the article's subject or someone who works for the article's subject. ] (]) 04:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. ] (]) 07:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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. ] (]) 15:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::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. ] 16:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::To me it seems like the most bad-faith of bad-faith de-PRODs, but I'm not going to fight the prevailing view. ] (]) 01:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :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. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 00:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ] (]) 01:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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 {{em|whether}} {{tq| the COI editor is violating the principles of ]}} 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 {{em|strictly}} biased contention about the page (ie that page’s existence). <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 02:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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 ] guideline. ] (]) 03:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Checking for previous PRODs == | |||
| {{nay}} Nah. Not unless we also forbid non-confirmed editors from removing them. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Reyk}} We could start a separate RfC on restricting PROD removal to confirmed editors. I do not see that this RfC should be acceptable only if that RfC is accepted. There are a lot of other things that non-confirmed editors can and cannot do. ] (]) 23:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{aye}} '''Support''', though it may be difficult to enforce this through technical means. If anonymous users can't create AFD pages, why would we let them use a process that has more restrictions and less scrutiny? –] (]) 02:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :There must be a way for a template to find out if a user has confirmed/autoconfirmed rights. Assuming there is, {{tl|proposed deletion}} could put the article into a maintenance category, "Proposed deletion suggestions by non-confirmed users", and render a warning message: {{ambox |type=style |image=] |issue=A non-confirmed user has suggested that this page be deleted. |fix=See ] for instructions on how to formally propose deletion, or just remove this template if deletion seems controversial.}} In effect, a confirmed user would have to review the non-confirmed user's suggestion before the process starts. ] (]) 00:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 00:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{nay}} '''Oppose''' per Reyk, unless they are also disallowed from removing them. Regardless of who makes the prod, the same admins, page watchers, and general editors can oversee the removal or actual deletion. Notice within the tag may be useful. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I have started an RfC on this below, ]. I see this as a separate proposal, but editors who have an opinion on this PROD creation proposal may have opinions on the PROD removal proposal. ] (]) 01:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - What about experienced IP editors with perfect track records? Too damn discriminatory. ''']]]''' 20:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Nay}} PROD patrol and guidance on patterns of misplaced nominations should be the focus rather than inhibiting a particular editor group from nominating. ] (]) 07:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Check the categorisation. Is the talk page in ]? ] (]) 03:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ''Welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit.'' which includes IPs and new users. But when it comes to maintenance, they are kicked out of the door? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 14:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::That category catches only those whose Talk page carries an ''Old Prod Full'' template, which has been added more systematically only recently: for example, ] is omitted. And, by extension, wouldn't catch the second instance of a deleted article. ] (]) 08:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If it doesn't have an {{tlx|oldprod}} tag on the talk page, the only way to see if it was previously PROD'd is to review the article history. ] 12:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If an article's history is so long that checking it is a problem then the article probably isn't suitable for PROD anyway. ] (]) 15:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You can use history search and look for addition of <nowiki>{{Proposed deletion</nowiki> ~] (]) 14:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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 @], 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 -- ] (]) 23:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Is it worth taking this to ] maybe? <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 00:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@]. I don't see why it's not worth a shot. It will at least get more engagement than it would here. -- ] (]) 03:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Surely PRODing, and then dePRODing your own PROD should not count as a previous PROD? == | |||
| == RfC on improving PROD instructions in "Before nomination" section == | |||
| I'm looking at this that was then . It seems quite odd that - doesn't that mean an editor could simply PROD-proof articles by PRODing accidentally and then reverting their mistake? Or even intentionally? Unfortunately the policy is silent on this. ] (]) 12:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfc|policy|rfcid=DFC8A0C}} | |||
| :I don't think this should count as a previous PROD. {{u|Liz}}, did you notice that the editor that added the PROD was the same editor that removed the PROD? ] 14:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Proposed improvements to ]: Before nomination | |||
| :I disagree, the policy is clear that any addition and removal not clearly done in bad faith counts as a valid use of the PROD process (apparent bad faith is not enough: {{tq|the proposed deletion is canceled, (...) even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith.}}). The lack of an explanation for the self-revert is not enough to overcome the ] for either action. If deletion is still warranted, ] is always available. ]★] -- 15:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| #The instructions should point out that if the article is about a notable subject it is not eligible for PROD, however poor the article quality. | |||
| ::OK, but even when it was a simple case of a slippy finger and self-reverted within seconds? I think you are applying an overly formalistic interpretation of what the policy says, but even with this - bad faith applies to ''someone else's bad faith'', not to a clear error. ] (]) 16:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| #They should recommend checking for sources on the internet (]) | |||
| :::I'd consider it a reasonable exception if there were a revert comment indicating that the PROD was accidental. But without an explanation we can't assume that was the case. I would generally assume that, after some time or research, the original proponent decided that deletion wasn't appropriate. ] (]) 23:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| #They should recommend checking other language versions, which may show notability. | |||
| ::::I think this is the right answer. ] (]) 22:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| #They should caution about searching for topics where the primary language does not use Latin script. | |||
| :::::Remember that you can always take it to AfD. If there's any doubt about the PROD then that would seem to be the best course if you think an article should be deleted. ] (]) 23:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Proposed by ] (]) 16:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I would say if removed by the person who added it then it should not count as having a previous PROD. I would also go further to say if someone removes a PROD and later adds/re adds a PROD it should be OK to delete but in the case of the latter it may be appropriate to start the 7 days again if there was more than a short time between the PROD being added or removed. As far as if they should be deleted or sent to AFD would depend on what the reason was for removal or otherwise if the article was improved. I the reason the PROD was removed was that the person who added it thought it might be controversial or should otherwise be discussed or sources/content was added when the PROD was later removed this would suggest it should probably be de-PRODed and sent to AFD if needed. If it was added accidentally or no reason was given for its removal then it should probably be eligible for deletion via PROD. Common sense should be used, in the case of Eskini I would have deleted it had I been dealing with that PROD. If we allow PRODs that have been removed by blocked or banned users I can't see why we can't use PROD if removed by the previous proder or allow re nomination by the de-prodder. ''']''' (]) 23:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Quick cleanup == | |||
| :{{Aye}} This is basic. Editors may not read the instructions, but we have to try. ] (]) 17:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Not sure}} ] already contains many steps and detailed instructions. These are routinely ignored by the editors who tag articles for deletion. Typically this happens because they use ] which makes tagging the easiest thing to do, while the actions suggested by ] tend to require more care, attention and detailed execution. So, the issue is not the instructions; it's the mechanical way these things are done. Enforcement is another issue. If there's no enforcement, then the instructions are a ], whatever they say. ]🐉(]) 21:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: See my more detailed comments below, but there is currently no link to ] in the PROD policy. –] (]) 02:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Aye}} As it makes things clear for new or newish editors who are unaware of ], ] (]) 00:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I started a ] on this but we beleive it is better to discuss it here. | |||
| ::There's nothing in the proposal that will help raise awareness of ]. ~] (]) 19:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Is it necessary to promptly and systematically remove all links (and mentions) to articles deleted at PROD? It makes it much harder to fully restore these articles in the event the deletion turns out to be controversial. I estimate that 30% or more of deletion proposals are potentially controversial. ~] (]) 15:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{hmmm}} ]. The actual purpose of BEFORE, a vehicle for ripping in to AfD nominators, doesn't pertain to PROD. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the topic deserves coverage in Misplaced Pages, the article should not be deleted (whether via ], PROD or ]) unless there is some legal concern like copyright violation, threats, etc. An article may be badly written and unsourced, but it takes very little effort to strip out unsourced puff, tag plausible statements with {{tl|fact}} and add sources as "==External links==". Maybe not as much fun as launching an AfD, but more constructive. ] (]) 18:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''': this RfC is about the "before nomination" section of the PROD policy, not ]. Despite {{noping|Reyk}}'s (IMO) sarcastic tone above, they are correct in that ] is not technically related to this policy. I would '''support''' adding a link to that page from the section under discussion. –] (]) 02:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support:''' This would definitely help limit disruption at AFD. ''']]]''' 20:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Aye}} Broadly agreeing with {{U|Kvng}}'s comments above. Reviewing ] I was surprised that it doesn't suggest lifting your eyes from the current article state to consider the potential availability of ] of notability elsewhere. ] (]) 07:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Just make sure PRODs best practices require BEFORE. Don't they already? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 01:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :No, there's no requirement to purge all red links after any page deletion, the ] says {{tq|If a given title should never have an article, such as an article on someone very obscure, then remove all links to it.}} ]★] -- 17:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC on limiting de-PROD to confirmed editors == | |||
| ::If the topic isn't notable (the reason for most PRODs), then typically that means the {{tq|given title should never have an article}}, which is why most admins (including me) do delink after deleting a PROD. These delinkings are fairly easy to find and undo if the article is undeleted, but it's a step that most admins (again including me) often forget. ] (]) 22:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please explain to me how you easily find and undo these link removals ~] (]) 23:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you wanted to find the delinkings for, say, ], you would: | |||
| ::::#Go to ]. | |||
| ::::#Click "older 50". | |||
| ::::#The URL should end with something like "offset=20241126072243". The page we're looking for was deleted at 21:49, 19 July 2023. Add an hour or so and put the corresponding date in the URL: "offset=202307192249". | |||
| ::::#This takes you to , and the first edit that comes up is , the only one I delinked. | |||
| ::::This isn't 100% perfect, but it nearly always does the trick. ] (]) 23:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks ]. I guess you're suggesting that the same admin will have done the cleanup around the same time as they deleted the article. The deleted article that prompted me to start this discussion was ] which was deleted by {{u|Hey man im josh}} but cleanup was done by {{u|Liz}}. This really isn't as easy as you're making it sound and it doesn't actually sound easy. ~] (]) 15:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't actually deal with PRODs that much because I'm usually beat to it. In that case, I believe I thought the links were possibly worth leaving, with the assumption someone might eventually want it to exist again or redirect it elsewhere. I do try to normally cleanup, but as mentioned, sometimes the links can be left and I felt that to be a situation where it could potentially useful to leave them. It's fine if others believe that cleanup should happen, but in this instance, I don't believe it was a mistake on my part, but if I recall, a conscious effort. ] (]) 15:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@], it is upsetting that you suspected an ] here but went ahead and deleted it anyway. ~] (]) 16:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@]: I was not aware of an ideal target at the time, but I suspected that one may come up eventually. Whenever I can find an ATD, I utilize it because I strongly believe that's always the best possible conclusion. ] (]) 16:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Respectfully, you should direct prodders to use AFD if you have ATD suspicions ~] (]) 16:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's feedback I'll take into consideration, thank you @]. I always strive to do better, and you are certainly making me consider that I should have looked harder. ] (]) 17:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::PROD makes no assessment of notability. To delete newly-red links on the assumption that it is non-notable is perhaps reasonable for AfD, but absolutely not for PROD. ] (]) 06:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There's presumably an assertion of lack of notability by the proposer (though many prods do not give a policy-based reason and appear to get deleted anyway) and presumably concurrence by the deleting administrator. It's possible someone else reviews it either due to watchlist notification or ] but this happens irregularly in my experience. The upshot is I don't think we can say there's a consensus on lack of notability in these cases. | |||
| ::::The discussion so far does not indicate there's a policy requirement or consensus to do this cleanup on prodded articles. Perhaps there is still more to discuss but I don't see a good reason to continue this practice. ~] (]) 15:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All links that refer to the deleted article should be removed but links for a different topic that happens to share the same name should be kept. As noted if the deleted article is restored the links should be restored. ''']''' (]) 20:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@], do you feel this is true for both AfD and PROD deletions? Discussion above hints that different recommendations for the two cases may be justified. I don't have a strong opinion about how AfD should be handled but have identified trouble with what we're doing for PRODs. ~] (]) 02:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{Ping|Kvng}} Yes I think the same rules apply for AFD, the only difference is that due to there being a discussion its less likely a suitable article will be deleted and then need to be restored. ''']''' (]) 09:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, that's the case I'm concerned about. {{u|Liz}} estimates 5% of PRODs are restored. In my experience, 30% of PRODs are either potentially controversial or have an ]. | |||
| ::::::::Fully restoring a deleted article is not necessarily a simple matter if the cleanup has been done promptly after deletion. | |||
| ::::::::Can you support delaying cleanup for 6 months PRODs? There are only 7 days between proposal and as far as I can tell, they're not so carefully reviewed during that window. ~] (]) 14:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't think we want to leave red links to deleted articles around for months as that would encorage people to re create probably nn topics. Reverting such cleanup after deletion isn't normally difficult since as noted the deleting admin's contributions can be looked at and doing the cleanup after 6 months may make it harder to revert sicne you would need to know who and when it was done. ''']''' (]) 22:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I don't see a problem with persisting red links - after all red links were prevalent when Misplaced Pages was in early build state 20 years ago. And practically, they enable the ''what links here'' view important if another article instance appears and an assessment for AfD is being done. As for the suggestion of 6 months deferred link deletion, that sounds like a nightmare piece of low-satisfaction drudgery which would just wear down volunteers. ] (]) 07:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I create lots of red links but we don't generally want red links to deleted articles. If there is a problem with deleted articles being restored we need to look at better proposed deletion patrolling. You can still check the contributions of the admin who deleted the article to see the former links. ''']''' (]) 20:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Please see the ] example above. It is not always the case that the delete and the cleanup is done by the same editor or administrator. | |||
| ::::::::::::] is understaffed cannot be counted on to identify bad proposals. Administrators are supposed to do their own review before deleting but I am not convinced this is being done conscientiously. If we can fix this somehow, it might be reasonable do cleanup promptly. ~] (]) 20:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : I would say no, although it may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Organic redlinks are generally a good thing and help the project grow. Not all prods are notability-based, and lots of articles get prodded (and also AFD'd, but that's a separate issue) for being "non-notable" despite ample sources existing. And crucially, ] contains no analog to ], so there is no reason to presume that prodders have even looked for sources. If the redlinks were created by the same user as the prodded article, it may be reasonable to remove them; but if they were organically created by other users I don't think it would be appropriate to remove them solely because of the expired prod. -- ] (]) 18:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It still does not appear a consensus on this is in reach. But, I wanted to make {{u|Explicit}} aware of this discussion as they've been closing a high volume of PRODs and has been following the cleanup suggestions in dispute here. ~] (]) 05:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Dealing with PRODs without correct edit summary == | |||
| {{rfc|policy|rfcid=BD2317C}} | |||
| Non-confirmed editors, or IPs, will often be unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's policies and conventions, and may not understand when removing a PROD is appropriate. This is to propose that removal of a PROD by a non-confirmed user should not be allowed. ] (]) 01:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] states "Provide a clear edit summary indicating the page has been proposed for deletion. Do not mark the edit as minor." and the procedures for admins states that we should check the edit summary before deletion. However I've seen a few instances recently where this has not been done. How should we proceed in this situation? I can think of three options: | |||
| *I'm not sure it's productive to have this many different RfCs on more or less the same topic, on the same page, at the same time. The opening statement is also not neutral, as it includes endorsements. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 20:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| #Decline the PROD on a procdural basis; | |||
| ::I tidied up the opening statement. These RfCs originated in a lengthy discussion about ways to improve PROD. It seems efficient to debate the individual ideas separately, so we can easily see which are actionable and which are not. ] (]) 23:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| #Use our judgment and delete if we feel necessary; | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Prod is intended to be asymmetric: high bar to nominate and low bar to remove. If an editor inappropriately removes a prod, the remedy is simple: move the discussion to AfD. ] (]) 23:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| #Reset the timestamp to give another 7 days, and state that a PROD is in place in the edit summary. | |||
| Thoughts? <span class="nowrap"> — ] (]</span> 17:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Misplaced Pages has many longstanding and productive editors who choose to edit as IPs. They'd be caught up in this.—] (]) 00:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Pretty sure #3 is a big change that changes what a PROD is. I favor #1, but I can see #2 if admins are going to actually exercise judgment. I saw a lot of inappropriate PRODs when I was going through them as an admin, and that hadn't changed when I had time to go through the list and de-PROD inappropriate ones as a non-admin. ] (]) 03:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''- I only, jokingly, proposed this to highlight how ludicrous it is to prevent nonconfirmed editors from placing a PROD. I did not intend for it to be taken seriously. ] <sub>]</sub> 10:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :PROD is simply a lightweight version of AfD for deleting articles without discussion if no opposition is expected. If there's anything wrong with the tag the article can always be taken to AfD if anyone still thinks it should be deleted. ] (]) 10:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose:''' Both this and the proposal to limit PRODS to confirmed accounts. ''']]]''' 20:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * The most important considerations for a PROD nomination are #1 the tag rationale itself and #5 notifying significant contributors. For wider visibility, there are the main PRODSORT report and project-based Aalertbot reports, which present the on-page rationale. There is also Datbot fulfilling #5 where the nominator didn't - for example on ] at present. Where #2 the edit summary and #4 the OldProd notice are important is for preventing a later PROD if the article survives or is refunded. Looking at examples lacking edit summaries, I maybe understand someone omitting it when they feel their on-page rationale says it all. It isn't ideal, but as long as the main reporting to interested parties has happened, the proposed remedies seem disproportionate (leading to an AFD which can't be soft-deleted because of the PROD, all because of a missing Edit Summary); an alternative might be for the Admin to ensure there is a Talk page Old Prod notice before deleting? ] (]) 15:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ''Welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit.'' which includes IPs. But when it comes to maintenance, they are kicked out of the door? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 14:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Commet'''. In my experience, majority of prod abuse comes not from the occasional newbie defending their article or misunderstanding the policy, but from hardcore inclusionists who deprod everything in sight, forcing AfD discussions over very clear cases because they can (]). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 01:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **This. ] <sub>]</sub> 07:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:52, 8 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proposed deletion page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. |
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)
- That sounds to me like it would fall afoul of WP:COI. DonIago (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
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)
- Check the categorisation. Is the talk page in Category:Past proposed deletion candidates? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- You can use history search and look for addition of {{Proposed deletion ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Lenny Marks Is it worth taking this to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) maybe? — HTGS (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- @Lenny Marks Is it worth taking this to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) maybe? — HTGS (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Surely PRODing, and then dePRODing your own PROD should not count as a previous PROD?
I'm looking at this PROD that was then self-reverted without explanation the next day. It seems quite odd that this should count as a previous PROD - doesn't that mean an editor could simply PROD-proof articles by PRODing accidentally and then reverting their mistake? Or even intentionally? Unfortunately the policy is silent on this. FOARP (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this should count as a previous PROD. Liz, did you notice that the editor that added the PROD was the same editor that removed the PROD? ~ GB fan 14:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree, the policy is clear that any addition and removal not clearly done in bad faith counts as a valid use of the PROD process (apparent bad faith is not enough:
the proposed deletion is canceled, (...) even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith.
). The lack of an explanation for the self-revert is not enough to overcome the presumption of good faith for either action. If deletion is still warranted, WP:AFD is always available. Iffy★Chat -- 15:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)- OK, but even when it was a simple case of a slippy finger and self-reverted within seconds? I think you are applying an overly formalistic interpretation of what the policy says, but even with this - bad faith applies to someone else's bad faith, not to a clear error. FOARP (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd consider it a reasonable exception if there were a revert comment indicating that the PROD was accidental. But without an explanation we can't assume that was the case. I would generally assume that, after some time or research, the original proponent decided that deletion wasn't appropriate. pburka (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is the right answer. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Remember that you can always take it to AfD. If there's any doubt about the PROD then that would seem to be the best course if you think an article should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would say if removed by the person who added it then it should not count as having a previous PROD. I would also go further to say if someone removes a PROD and later adds/re adds a PROD it should be OK to delete but in the case of the latter it may be appropriate to start the 7 days again if there was more than a short time between the PROD being added or removed. As far as if they should be deleted or sent to AFD would depend on what the reason was for removal or otherwise if the article was improved. I the reason the PROD was removed was that the person who added it thought it might be controversial or should otherwise be discussed or sources/content was added when the PROD was later removed this would suggest it should probably be de-PRODed and sent to AFD if needed. If it was added accidentally or no reason was given for its removal then it should probably be eligible for deletion via PROD. Common sense should be used, in the case of Eskini I would have deleted it had I been dealing with that PROD. If we allow PRODs that have been removed by blocked or banned users I can't see why we can't use PROD if removed by the previous proder or allow re nomination by the de-prodder. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Remember that you can always take it to AfD. If there's any doubt about the PROD then that would seem to be the best course if you think an article should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is the right answer. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd consider it a reasonable exception if there were a revert comment indicating that the PROD was accidental. But without an explanation we can't assume that was the case. I would generally assume that, after some time or research, the original proponent decided that deletion wasn't appropriate. pburka (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, but even when it was a simple case of a slippy finger and self-reverted within seconds? I think you are applying an overly formalistic interpretation of what the policy says, but even with this - bad faith applies to someone else's bad faith, not to a clear error. FOARP (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Quick cleanup
I started a discussion with Liz on this but we beleive it is better to discuss it here.
Is it necessary to promptly and systematically remove all links (and mentions) to articles deleted at PROD? It makes it much harder to fully restore these articles in the event the deletion turns out to be controversial. I estimate that 30% or more of deletion proposals are potentially controversial. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, there's no requirement to purge all red links after any page deletion, the Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators says
If a given title should never have an article, such as an article on someone very obscure, then remove all links to it.
Iffy★Chat -- 17:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)- If the topic isn't notable (the reason for most PRODs), then typically that means the
given title should never have an article
, which is why most admins (including me) do delink after deleting a PROD. These delinkings are fairly easy to find and undo if the article is undeleted, but it's a step that most admins (again including me) often forget. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)- Please explain to me how you easily find and undo these link removals ~Kvng (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you wanted to find the delinkings for, say, Aleksandar Gaćeša, you would:
- Go to the deleting admin's contributions.
- Click "older 50".
- The URL should end with something like "offset=20241126072243". The page we're looking for was deleted at 21:49, 19 July 2023. Add an hour or so and put the corresponding date in the URL: "offset=202307192249".
- This takes you to this page, and the first edit that comes up is this one, the only one I delinked.
- This isn't 100% perfect, but it nearly always does the trick. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Extraordinary Writ. I guess you're suggesting that the same admin will have done the cleanup around the same time as they deleted the article. The deleted article that prompted me to start this discussion was 8-N-1 which was deleted by Hey man im josh but cleanup was done by Liz. This really isn't as easy as you're making it sound and it doesn't actually sound easy. ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't actually deal with PRODs that much because I'm usually beat to it. In that case, I believe I thought the links were possibly worth leaving, with the assumption someone might eventually want it to exist again or redirect it elsewhere. I do try to normally cleanup, but as mentioned, sometimes the links can be left and I felt that to be a situation where it could potentially useful to leave them. It's fine if others believe that cleanup should happen, but in this instance, I don't believe it was a mistake on my part, but if I recall, a conscious effort. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh, it is upsetting that you suspected an WP:ATD here but went ahead and deleted it anyway. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Kvng: I was not aware of an ideal target at the time, but I suspected that one may come up eventually. Whenever I can find an ATD, I utilize it because I strongly believe that's always the best possible conclusion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully, you should direct prodders to use AFD if you have ATD suspicions ~Kvng (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's feedback I'll take into consideration, thank you @Kvng. I always strive to do better, and you are certainly making me consider that I should have looked harder. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully, you should direct prodders to use AFD if you have ATD suspicions ~Kvng (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Kvng: I was not aware of an ideal target at the time, but I suspected that one may come up eventually. Whenever I can find an ATD, I utilize it because I strongly believe that's always the best possible conclusion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh, it is upsetting that you suspected an WP:ATD here but went ahead and deleted it anyway. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't actually deal with PRODs that much because I'm usually beat to it. In that case, I believe I thought the links were possibly worth leaving, with the assumption someone might eventually want it to exist again or redirect it elsewhere. I do try to normally cleanup, but as mentioned, sometimes the links can be left and I felt that to be a situation where it could potentially useful to leave them. It's fine if others believe that cleanup should happen, but in this instance, I don't believe it was a mistake on my part, but if I recall, a conscious effort. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Extraordinary Writ. I guess you're suggesting that the same admin will have done the cleanup around the same time as they deleted the article. The deleted article that prompted me to start this discussion was 8-N-1 which was deleted by Hey man im josh but cleanup was done by Liz. This really isn't as easy as you're making it sound and it doesn't actually sound easy. ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you wanted to find the delinkings for, say, Aleksandar Gaćeša, you would:
- PROD makes no assessment of notability. To delete newly-red links on the assumption that it is non-notable is perhaps reasonable for AfD, but absolutely not for PROD. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's presumably an assertion of lack of notability by the proposer (though many prods do not give a policy-based reason and appear to get deleted anyway) and presumably concurrence by the deleting administrator. It's possible someone else reviews it either due to watchlist notification or WP:PRODPATROL but this happens irregularly in my experience. The upshot is I don't think we can say there's a consensus on lack of notability in these cases.
- The discussion so far does not indicate there's a policy requirement or consensus to do this cleanup on prodded articles. Perhaps there is still more to discuss but I don't see a good reason to continue this practice. ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- All links that refer to the deleted article should be removed but links for a different topic that happens to share the same name should be kept. As noted if the deleted article is restored the links should be restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale, do you feel this is true for both AfD and PROD deletions? Discussion above hints that different recommendations for the two cases may be justified. I don't have a strong opinion about how AfD should be handled but have identified trouble with what we're doing for PRODs. ~Kvng (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Kvng: Yes I think the same rules apply for AFD, the only difference is that due to there being a discussion its less likely a suitable article will be deleted and then need to be restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the case I'm concerned about. Liz estimates 5% of PRODs are restored. In my experience, 30% of PRODs are either potentially controversial or have an WP:ATD.
- Fully restoring a deleted article is not necessarily a simple matter if the cleanup has been done promptly after deletion.
- Can you support delaying cleanup for 6 months PRODs? There are only 7 days between proposal and as far as I can tell, they're not so carefully reviewed during that window. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we want to leave red links to deleted articles around for months as that would encorage people to re create probably nn topics. Reverting such cleanup after deletion isn't normally difficult since as noted the deleting admin's contributions can be looked at and doing the cleanup after 6 months may make it harder to revert sicne you would need to know who and when it was done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with persisting red links - after all red links were prevalent when Misplaced Pages was in early build state 20 years ago. And practically, they enable the what links here view important if another article instance appears and an assessment for AfD is being done. As for the suggestion of 6 months deferred link deletion, that sounds like a nightmare piece of low-satisfaction drudgery which would just wear down volunteers. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I create lots of red links but we don't generally want red links to deleted articles. If there is a problem with deleted articles being restored we need to look at better proposed deletion patrolling. You can still check the contributions of the admin who deleted the article to see the former links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please see the 8-N-1 example above. It is not always the case that the delete and the cleanup is done by the same editor or administrator.
- WP:PRODPATROL is understaffed cannot be counted on to identify bad proposals. Administrators are supposed to do their own review before deleting but I am not convinced this is being done conscientiously. If we can fix this somehow, it might be reasonable do cleanup promptly. ~Kvng (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I create lots of red links but we don't generally want red links to deleted articles. If there is a problem with deleted articles being restored we need to look at better proposed deletion patrolling. You can still check the contributions of the admin who deleted the article to see the former links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with persisting red links - after all red links were prevalent when Misplaced Pages was in early build state 20 years ago. And practically, they enable the what links here view important if another article instance appears and an assessment for AfD is being done. As for the suggestion of 6 months deferred link deletion, that sounds like a nightmare piece of low-satisfaction drudgery which would just wear down volunteers. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we want to leave red links to deleted articles around for months as that would encorage people to re create probably nn topics. Reverting such cleanup after deletion isn't normally difficult since as noted the deleting admin's contributions can be looked at and doing the cleanup after 6 months may make it harder to revert sicne you would need to know who and when it was done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Kvng: Yes I think the same rules apply for AFD, the only difference is that due to there being a discussion its less likely a suitable article will be deleted and then need to be restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale, do you feel this is true for both AfD and PROD deletions? Discussion above hints that different recommendations for the two cases may be justified. I don't have a strong opinion about how AfD should be handled but have identified trouble with what we're doing for PRODs. ~Kvng (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- All links that refer to the deleted article should be removed but links for a different topic that happens to share the same name should be kept. As noted if the deleted article is restored the links should be restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please explain to me how you easily find and undo these link removals ~Kvng (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- If the topic isn't notable (the reason for most PRODs), then typically that means the
- I would say no, although it may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Organic redlinks are generally a good thing and help the project grow. Not all prods are notability-based, and lots of articles get prodded (and also AFD'd, but that's a separate issue) for being "non-notable" despite ample sources existing. And crucially, WP:PROD contains no analog to WP:BEFORE, so there is no reason to presume that prodders have even looked for sources. If the redlinks were created by the same user as the prodded article, it may be reasonable to remove them; but if they were organically created by other users I don't think it would be appropriate to remove them solely because of the expired prod. -- Visviva (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- It still does not appear a consensus on this is in reach. But, I wanted to make Explicit aware of this discussion as they've been closing a high volume of PRODs and has been following the cleanup suggestions in dispute here. ~Kvng (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Dealing with PRODs without correct edit summary
During nomination states "Provide a clear edit summary indicating the page has been proposed for deletion. Do not mark the edit as minor." and the procedures for admins states that we should check the edit summary before deletion. However I've seen a few instances recently where this has not been done. How should we proceed in this situation? I can think of three options:
- Decline the PROD on a procdural basis;
- Use our judgment and delete if we feel necessary;
- Reset the timestamp to give another 7 days, and state that a PROD is in place in the edit summary.
Thoughts? — Voice of Clam (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pretty sure #3 is a big change that changes what a PROD is. I favor #1, but I can see #2 if admins are going to actually exercise judgment. I saw a lot of inappropriate PRODs when I was going through them as an admin, and that hadn't changed when I had time to go through the list and de-PROD inappropriate ones as a non-admin. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- PROD is simply a lightweight version of AfD for deleting articles without discussion if no opposition is expected. If there's anything wrong with the tag the article can always be taken to AfD if anyone still thinks it should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The most important considerations for a PROD nomination are #1 the tag rationale itself and #5 notifying significant contributors. For wider visibility, there are the main PRODSORT report and project-based Aalertbot reports, which present the on-page rationale. There is also Datbot fulfilling #5 where the nominator didn't - for example on T.O.P_(DJ) at present. Where #2 the edit summary and #4 the OldProd notice are important is for preventing a later PROD if the article survives or is refunded. Looking at examples lacking edit summaries, I maybe understand someone omitting it when they feel their on-page rationale says it all. It isn't ideal, but as long as the main reporting to interested parties has happened, the proposed remedies seem disproportionate (leading to an AFD which can't be soft-deleted because of the PROD, all because of a missing Edit Summary); an alternative might be for the Admin to ensure there is a Talk page Old Prod notice before deleting? AllyD (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)