Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

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 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)

Proposed deletion in the Japanese Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New form of PROD proposed

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

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

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

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

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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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:

1. Go to the deleting admin's contributions.
2. Click "older 50".
3. 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".
4. 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)

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 Wikipedia 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)