Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 18

"uncontroversial"

Me and a few other editors have repeatedly had PRODs that we placed on articles removed by serial PROD removers that have a clear agenda to either keep almost everything or make it an extremely difficult uphill battle for anything to be deleted, because supposedly the PRODs where "controversial." When 99% of the time they were the only ones that had a problem with it and when articles went to AfD, most of the time they were deleted without incident. So my question is, what constitutes a "controversy", is something "controversial" if one person who has an agenda takes an issue with the PRODs, Is there a line where if someone is systematically removing PRODs due to their agenda and to make things harder for other people that it becomes abuse of the system? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• As long as it's possible to deprod for no reason at all, or because they don't like the PROD process, or because they don't like the prodding editor, or because they're trying to be annoying, or any other stupid non-justification, it's not possible to infer there's some "controversy" you should have been able to predict beforehand. Caprice is by definition unpredictable. People will try and tell you that getting your PRODs declined too often is felonious conduct on your part, but nobody actually believes it. Reyk _YO! 07:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• "is something "controversial" if one person takes an issue with the PRODs" Yes.
• "Is there a line where if someone is systematically removing PRODs due to their agenda" In some cases, also yes. Darkknight2149 07:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: "make it an extremely difficult uphill battle for anything to be deleted": There is no policy that says that it should be easy to delete good-faith articles. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, chucking a spanner into what should be routine maintenance work out of petulance isn't something that should be encouraged either. Reyk _YO! 14:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Darkknight2149 has it right. An editor that deprods en masse without reasonable justification would be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE and I assume would be subject to a WP:BLOCK ~Kvng (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Adamant1 does not seem to maintain a PROD log and so it was not clear what or who they were talking about. To assist discussion, here's a table of PRODs that they have proposed in the last 3 months. Notice that, while these topics are all quite similar, the PRODs have been removed by a variety of editors. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent PRODs by Adamant1

Date	Article	Deprodder	Creator
28 Oct 2020	Herschel Girls' School	User:SportingFlyer	User:Raker
21 Oct 2020	Ebène State Secondary School (Girls)	User:Necrothesp	User:Shruti14
19 Oct 2020	Homevale High School	User:Necrothesp	User:Mona-LisaJafta16
19 Oct 2020	Athlone Boys' High School	User:Necrothesp	User:MrOfet
19 Oct 2020	Allen Glen High School	User:Necrothesp	User:Maggs830920
19 Oct 2020	Zambia Forestry College	User:Necrothesp	User:Martinchangani
19 Oct 2020	Lioli High School	User:Necrothesp	User:Molise Lesley Maqelepo
19 Oct 2020	Mabathoana High School	User:Phil Bridger	User:Rigleybr
17 Oct 2020	Le Bocage International School	User:Necrothesp	User:Kappa
17 Oct 2020	Ebène State Secondary School (Boys)	User:Necrothesp	User:Shruti14
17 Oct 2020	Bon Accueil State College	User:Necrothesp	User:Neshivo
17 Oct 2020	Rodrigues College	User:Necrothesp	User:Sacalavou
16 Oct 2020	Matriculation in South Africa	User:Andrew Davidson	User:Htonl
09 Oct 2020	University of Bechar	User:Atlantic306	User:Emijrp
09 Oct 2020	University of Bejaia	User:AllyD	User:WhisperToMe
09 Oct 2020	Batna 1 University	User:Atlantic306	User:Rabie222a
09 Oct 2020	University of Laghouat	User:Atlantic306	User:Tahasamurai
09 Oct 2020	University of Adrar	User:Atlantic306	User:Emijrp
09 Oct 2020	University of Boumerdès	User:Phil Bridger	User:Boumediene15
12 Sep 2020	Al Noor Hospitals	User:Dormskirk	User:Ardourian
12 Sep 2020	Allied Hospital	User:Adamant1	User:Captain_Assassin!
12 Sep 2020	DHQ Faisalabad	User:Atlantic306	User:Zaidi.raza

• As the other editors in question may wish to comment, let's ensure that they are notified. @SportingFlyer, Necrothesp, Phil Bridger, Atlantic306, AllyD, and Dormskirk: Andrew🐉(talk) 23:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason "it was not clear what or who they were talking about" is because it was a general question that I didn't feel like singling anyone out in particular for. For some reason, it's almost like you can't just ask a question around here without it turning into a big row. Where people on the other side bandwagon and go off on whoever is asking it. Andrew, I really don't appreciate you turning this into a personal thing or trying to make a spat out of it when neither was why I asked the question. The only reason "the other editors" are in question is because you just made them a part of this. My guess is that your doing it so that the subsequent row will deflect from the question getting answered. If had wanted specific users involved in this, or if it had anything to do with them, I would have just pinged them myself. It's extremely bad faithed and rude to implicate people in something on my behalf that I didn't implicate them in myself. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, there was an accusation embedded into your question about whether users can be sanctioned for indiscriminate deprodding: Me and a few other editors have repeatedly had PRODs that we placed on articles removed by serial PROD removers that have a clear agenda to either keep almost everything or make it an extremely difficult uphill battle for anything to be deleted, because supposedly the PRODs where "controversial." I don't think it's bad form to notify them. They will probably want to know that this could lead to reports being filed against them in the future. Darkknight2149 01:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I've been doing PRODs for a while now and whatever "embedded accusation" it might have had, I didn't have any specific people in mind or I would have just said so. I have zero problem calling out specific people doing things when I want to. I have zero problem with Andrew pinging people about a discussion. I do have a problem with him pinging specific people that I'm currently having issues with and saying that I was specifically talking about them when I wasn't. Even if I was, it wouldn't be appropriate though. Whatever "embedded accusation" there might have been. Sure, ping people all you want though, just don't put words in my mouth or whatever when you do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think the question has been answered, so one side comment: It's fine not to have a PROD log (really only make sense if you're using Twinkle's script to automate), but I would still encourage manually putting an {{old prod}} template on the Talk pages so that if another editor comes by later, it's easier to know that the article is ineligible for another PROD and go to AfD. -2pou (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought the question had been answered to. Andrew is just trying to turn this into a personal thing and create an issue where there isn't one. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I really do take exception to be accused of being a "serial PROD remover[s] that have a clear agenda to either keep almost everything or make it an extremely difficult uphill battle for anything to be deleted". I am most certainly not a serial PROD remover. Nor do I think nothing should be deleted (I've deleted plenty of rubbish from Wikipedia in my many years here). I regularly check the prod categories and only remove PRODs in a small minority of cases where I believe the PROD has been wrongly applied and where deletion needs further discussion. This has already been explained to Adamant1. It has also been explained that a PROD can be removed by any editor for any reason (or none). Prodding was introduced for wholly uncontroversial deletion of rubbish and NN articles that have no value to Wikipedia. It was not introduced to allow editors to bypass the AfD system on articles that may be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Good thing no one accused you of being one then. Especially me. I was pretty clear that my question wasn't pointed at any particular user. I don't see how you could have missed that fact either. That said, your comment is exactly the type of thing I was talking about when I said Andrew is just trying to cause problems. Nice job going along with it. It's pretty clear what both of your priorities are. Fake grievances and made up controversies. The whole thing is so ridiculously trite and played out at this point. You guys should really get a new gimmick. Especially Andrew Davidson. Dude has a way lower AfD success rate then I do and yet your all criticizing my edits. As if. Fake aggrievement. That's all it is. Pure, simple, fake aggrievement. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You know, you really do need to tone down your aggression. You did, after all, accuse me of vandalism and threaten to report me for removing your prods! Or did you maybe forget that? Strange, since it was only a week ago. This whole thing suggests you think you know best about what should and should not be included on Wikipedia and take exception to anyone challenging your judgement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have updated the table above to add the user that created each article. Note that, in no case, did that editor remove the proposed deletion. One reason for this will be that Adamant1 does not notify the creator when they place a PROD. This failure to notify seems quite controversial. As such editors tend not to be habitual editors who check their watchlist often, they may not understand what has happened to their creation if it is deleted. From their perspective, it will just have vanished without explanation. They will then tend to be annoyed and/or confused.

The WP:PROD process explains how this should be done: "You should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors by adding the {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} tag or other appropriate text to contributor talk pages."

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd love to know how any of that is relevant to my question or really anything else for that matter (hint, it isn't). At this point your just blowing hot air to hear the sound of your own voice and continue a discuss that was already resolved before your first comment. Please desist from it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• The original question was about what makes a proposed deletion controversial. If someone creates an article about a respectable topic in good faith and then you propose that it be deleted but don't notify them then that would be an example of a controversial proposal. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh. You should have just said that instead of including all the unnecessary personal tripe. That aside though, the last time I checked notifying the article creator while being courteous isn't required. I'm pretty sure most people would agree that doing something like a G12 or G1 speedy delete wouldn't be controversial even if the article creator wasn't notified about it. Nor IMO would it be cool for anyone to remove them at their whim "because controversy." Also, I think we all agree that it shouldn't be necessary to take every gibberish or copyright violating article to AfD, just so we can all pontificate about them to build "consensus" that they should be deleted or whatever. Personally, I rather skip the bureaucracy when it's not completely necessary and trust that the reviewing admins know what they are doing. I fully acknowledge that its not the way people like Necrothesp and SportingFlyer prefer to do things though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You think that notifying the creator of a prodded article isn't required (which it isn't, of course). Because WP:PROD doesn't say you have to. But you also apparently think that other editors don't have an absolute right to remove any prods they choose. Which WP:PROD says quite clearly that they do. Seems you have a very select reading of that particular policy. One that allows you to prod articles to your heart's content and doesn't allow anyone else to remove those prods. Glad we sorted that one out. I'm not sure what I fully acknowledge that its not the way people like Necrothesp and SportingFlyer prefer to do things though means. As I have said several times, the vast majority of prods are correctly placed and I wouldn't dream of removing them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly notifying the author , tho not required, is by far the normal thing to do. (Perhaps we need another RfC on making it required for aeticles by apparently good faith editors--the reason it didn't pass last time is we might not want to notify trolls and socks, so we can't really do it automatically) But it's especially important in Prod, which is designed to give the author a chance to object, which stops the prod. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC) �

I don't personally see much point in doing it just so the PROD isn't "controversial" when it's pretty likely the bad faithed editors will just find another reason to remove them. Then there will have to be an RfC about that, and one for whatever the next thing is, and one for whatever the thing after that is, add nauseum. I'm fine notifying articles creators because it's a good thing to do though. Sometimes when I remember I'll do it with for AfDs. Although, I do forget and I don't think having a bad memory deserves being repeatedly reverted and slandered for. Especially since they will just find another thing to complain about and justify their actions because of anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Doing AfDs and PRODs without Twinkle is clunky and time-consuming; I did it that way for many months. I recommend using Twinkle to automate those processes. Less work and more consistency. Less fault for people to find in discussions like this one. You just check a few boxes and type in your nomination reason. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I am in agreement with other editors that say you're thinking about this the wrong way, User:Adamant1.

Me and a few other editors have repeatedly had PRODs that we placed on articles removed by serial PROD removers that have a clear agenda to either keep almost everything or make it an extremely difficult uphill battle for anything to be deleted, because supposedly the PRODs where "controversial." When 99% of the time they were the only ones that had a problem with it and when articles went to AfD, most of the time they were deleted without incident.

• Please stop using language such as serial PROD removers and clear agenda. You can remove a PROD for no reason. You do not need to provide a reason for removing a PROD. You are suggesting a conspiracy which simply isn't there. Stop it.
• extremely difficult uphill battle No - removing a PROD does not make things more or less difficult. It simply means the deletion weren't as uncontroversial as you thought, and now the appropriate next step is to go to a regular AfD.
• supposedly the PRODs where "controversial." Every time a PROD gets removed, the deletion of that article is deemed controversial. By definition. No ifs, no buts - the PROD gets removed, you need to go to AfD. Simple. The removal of a PROD is not to be understood as making the subsequent AfD easier or harder. The removal of PROD is just a neutral indicator saying "an AfD is needed here".
• they were the only ones that had a problem with it You seriously misunderstand PROD if you think it's wrong for an editor to remove it without having backup from more editors. The entire point of PROD is to distinguish articles whose deletion nobody objects to from articles anybody objects to. Whether there are 1, 2 or 999 editors objecting to the deletion is immaterial (for the purposes of PROD), all that matters is that >0 editors objected. The outcome is calm and neutral: "the PROD wasn't uncontested so take it to AfD". At AfD a single editor is usually not able to prevent a deletion outcome. The system is working as intended.
• The fact an AfD resulted in they were deleted without incident is NOT a good reason to question the PROD in retrospect. You do not need to provide a reason to remove a PROD, full stop. If there's an editor who is problematic that will be dealt with by the usual separate processes. It does not mean PROD is broken. It does not mean we need to change how PROD works.

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: On the "agenda" thing, Necrothesp has written an article on his talk page all about how there is no legitimate instance where an article about a school should deleted and then removed a bunch of my PRODs on schools over an extremely short period of time, that I doubt he at all look at the merits of before removing them. 100% he has an agenda to have articles about schools kept, he's pretty clear about it himself, and I don't see what's controversial about saying so. Also, I've had instances, and I've seen it happen to other people, where PRODs get removed by certain users who think specific users edits are wrong no matter what and just remove the PRODs because they were placed by someone who they think generally makes bad edits. Again, that's clearly having an agenda and I see nothing wrong with saying it is. Just like in the other instance they are pretty clear that's why they are doing it. People just remove PRODs because their preferred method of articles being deleted is through AfD. Which again, they are clear about and I considering being a serial PROD remover. Maybe it's not the term you'd use, but last I checked, I can speak how I want. I also find it rather rich that some of the criticism over my use of the term is coming from people like Andrew who were fine saying, and feeding into, a narrative that I was editing articles related to Africa because I have issue with the continent or something. I have zero qualms with using a fairly tame word like "agenda" in the company, or about the actions of, people who have zero problem with me or other people being accused of racism or similar things.

Re "extremely difficult uphill battle", removing a PROD does make things more difficult when it's an otherwise obvious case that the article should or could be deleted and the PRODs is being removed solely and for no other reason except to force the person who added it to open an AfD. Someone making articles go to AfD because it's their personal preference when the article should have been able to be deleted through a PROD is 100% making things an uphill battle for other users just for it's own sake. Period. BTW, it's also more of an uphill battle for whoever want's to recreate the article later. It's just a fact that the bar to recreation is much harder with an article that was deleted through AfD then one that was deleted by a PROD. Again, that's just a fact.

Re "Every time a PROD gets removed, the deletion of that article is deemed controversial", that's just circular reasoning. "The PROD is controversial because it got removed. So I removed it." It's also nonsensical. People are removing the PRODs because they say the PROD is controversial. The PROD isn't because it's been removed at that point, because it hasn't been yet. Seriously.

Re "it's wrong for an editor to remove it without having backup from more editors." No where did I say that and it had nothing to do with my original question. Nice use of a strawman though. I will quib "The system is working as intended" if we are unable to use the PROD system as intended or at all. Which seems to mostly be the case. Its ridiculous to a say system that is literally meant to be used as way to delete articles, and can't be used to delete aritcles, is "working as intended."

Re "The fact an AfD resulted in they were deleted without incident is NOT a good reason to question the PROD in retrospect." Again, that's not my issue, it's not why I'm questioning PRODs, and I never said it was. That said, I agree how PRODs work should probably be changed. More because of how people are miss using the clauses though then because it's "defective" as it currently is though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have a beef with individual editors, that's one thing. But here is not the place to vent. This is not the place to name names. And nowhere is a good place to make sweeping generalizations. You're making a lot of non-specific accusations that are shredding your credibility, and I am calling you out on them. I emphatically recommend you to read and re-read what I wrote and take those arguments to heart. That is all that needs to be said on this matter, at least here on this talk page. Please do not mistake my response above as an invitation for a debate. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Last time I checked this is a discussion and one I started. So don't tell me what to do or how to say things. I didn't say I had a beef with anyone and I've been clear that my question wasn't specific to anyone. I was just using Necrothesp as an example, because sometimes it's helpful to have one and it didn't seem like you understood what I was saying. I could really care less about him or anyone involved in this discussion though. If anything they have a beef with me. Especially Andrew. Who's the only one that's made this personal. And I really don't appreciate everything I say being misstructured or read bad intent into. The last time I checked the word "agenda" is pretty neutral. Except for people that aren't AGF and want to read bad intent into it. That's not how I meant it though. I just couldn't think of a better word at the time. So, whatever negative connotation anyone gets out of it is totally on them. People use words. Get the over it dude. Also, this is a discussion board. So if you can't handle people responding to you, maybe just don't participate. I'm not going to be lectured and have what I say taken out of context without reply to it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You are definitely being lectured, User:Adamant1. What you said was not taken out of context - I quoted the entire context, and then called you out on several areas where your conduct is lacking. Consider my post to be stern but friendly advice you should heed if you want people to cooperate with you. And oh, "thinking of better words" before writing them is one way of summarizing WP:CIVIL, and you are asked to do exactly that. I now consider this matter closed. CapnZapp (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not a regular PROD remover. I am not sure, but I think I may never have actually removed a PROD, or only done it once or twice. However, I have seen evidence of extreme trigger-happiness in my work at AFD. Some editors appear to be applying PROD as a first-step rather than as a last resort. Some editors seem to prefer deletion to the actual work of editing the encyclopaedia. I am talking about the basic work of checking to see whether an unsourced article can be sourced, or whether a promotional article can be re-written as a non-promotional one. PROD should only be used for uncontroversial, unsaveable article and it should not simply be a way of avoiding having to get a consensus on deletion through AFD - and if the author doesn't want it deleted, then yes, it is a controversial deletion.

To choose two recent examples that I am familiar with, both New Federal State of China and 1776 Commission were PROD'ed as a first step when ultimately both were saveable. The editors who PROD'ed them were both quite experienced so I honestly am not sure why they did it.

PROD deletion is NOT "routine maintenance work" if you're getting people removing your PRODs. If people regularly remove your PROD, then you need to change your behaviour and consider that you may have been deleting articles, and undoing the good work of other editors, without good cause. This is disruptive behaviour of the worst kind, even if well-intended. FOARP (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Notifications and placing PRODs

A second issue raised above concerns You should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors (step 1 of PROD). I must say that while I understand the desire to upgrade "should" to "must", I really think we need to consider the obvious alternative first:

If you are concerned about a specific article's development, possibly including it being PRODded, how about you placing it on your watchlist?

That is, I don't think the onus should be on editors when it comes to "I wasn't informed", apart from very specific cases (such as WP:ANI). We have several tools to help editors keep tabs on their areas of interest, how about we assume they are used to inform users when PRODs are placed?

In my mind, avoiding instruction creep is more important than an editor possibly failing to catch a PROD in time. The worst case scenario (requesting undeletion) simply isn't that bad, compared to adding an administrative burden to all PRODs, even the ones that work as intended. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Because not everyone is going to be on Wikipedia for 24/7 for all eternity or checking their watchlist on a daily basis. A message, or even a ping, usually sends a notification to one's email. Many articles are not prodded until years later, and to be honest, there is no obvious reason to be against notifying the author other than "Man, I really hope this prod doesn't get contested." A least, there should be a bot informing people "the article you created has been proposed for deletion", or something like that. Darkknight2149 16:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Totally my personal preference, but I don't think the article creator should have to be notified when it's something like a SPA that created an empty, or almost empty, article 10 years ago. There should be a little grey area to that also. Nor do I think they should have to be notified when it's clear they are a COI editor who just created the article for promotional reasons. It doesn't really have anything to do with not wanting PRODs to be contested. Just that we are volunteers and it pointlessly takes time away from other things posting about PRODs on people's talk pages that they likely don't care about. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone left me that message too. The guidelines say "The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed deletion." so this is only a suggestion. I think this would only add work load to other editors if the article in question is highly likely to be covert paid editing Graywalls (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a "suggestion" that if not followed people use as an reason remove the PRODs though. In most of the cases where my PRODs were removed the articles were extremely promotional, pretty likely editing by COI editors (or were), and it would have added extra work load to notify them about the PRODs. I say "likely" because obviously it's hard to prove 100% that everyone is a COI editor in all cases where we think they might be, but I still don't think the 1% or 2% of the time where it turns out they aren't means everyone should be notified all time. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be required to notify the author (by author I mean only the person who created the page or turned a redirect into a separate page) on all deletion (CSD, PROD and XFD) although I'm aware at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#All authors must be notified of deletion but requiring only the creator as opposed to anyone who merely contributed seems reasonable. An exception would be IP users, (who generally can't create articles) users who are blocked (in the case of PROD or XFD when the user's block end time is longer than 1 week) and users who are topic banned from the topic of the article etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Upgrading "should" to "must" per nom. The concern about COI editors seems misguided - paid editors are the most likely to be monitoring the page to make it stay up, whilst good-faith editors are the least likely to be continually monitoring the articles they have created to see if someone PRODs them. Of course you don't have to notify IP editors. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with that. Most of the time COI editors are paid once to create the article and then move on. Maybe another COI editor will edit it later one, but rarely (if ever) is it the same user. Especially for articles that were created more then a few months ago. No one is continously paying the same person to keep an eye on their Wikipedia article years after its creation though. Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The classic COI case is someone who created their own article, and yes, you betcha they monitor them because it helps surface their name/profile top of the list on Google - I've seen more than a few of these at AFD, and having the COI editor come in to oppose is very common. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur, far fewer good faith editors are going to know how the logs and raw watchlist (so that they can find it) than paid editors and anyway this might give admins an idea of the users creation history for if sanctions need to be made. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- mandating anything like this strikes me as instruction creep. I also think forcing people to notify "significant contributors" would be annoying for everyone. There will be no contribution so insignificant that inclusionists won't claim we have to notify the responsible party and we'll end up with frazzled maintenance workers sending out pointless spam in quantities that would make a nigerian prince proud, and my user talk clogged up with crap because I once changed "doe snot" to "does not" on some cartoon character back in 2009. Reyk _YO! 12:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see this as a clear improvement to process and I think it has the potential to open a can of wikilawyering. ~Kvng (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support but only for the original author (that is to say the person in the 1st edit in the history) with the exceptions I gave above. For now keep "should" for a person who converted a redirect to an article or otherwise is a significant contributor. Requiring people to notify only the original author isn't beuroristic since its not difficult to copy the notification template that the PROD generates and go to the history and click on earliest or just click on "page information" and go to the talk page of the author. In addition many PRODs are done with Twinkle or other tools and automatically do this anyway. Its only fair and reasonable to enforce this minimal standard so that new users an those who aren't active every week/don't monitor their watchlist get a fair chance to know about it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Independent judgment

BLPPROD says that the article shouldn't be deleted by the person who added the PROD tag, does that apply with standard proposed deletion as well? I would say so but it probably matters much less since anyone can object to a standard PROD for any reason while a reliable source has to be added to remove the tag. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• I probably wouldn't delete an article I tagged for PROD but I don't think it really matters all that much. Anyone can remove a PROD or request undeletion if the PROD has already been executed - if someone was going to object to my proposed deletion they had 7 days to do it, and if they want to object afterwards they just have to go to WP:REFUND and say so. I'm no more likely to be able to sneakily delete things out of process than if someone else was actually pushing the delete button. That being said I would definitely delete an article I flagged for BLPPROD if no sources were added in the given timeline per WP:IAR; that's a bad addition to the policy IMO. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete an article that I'd BLPPRODed since its not difficult to just let someone else do it but its probably not that bigger deal since if a reliable source can be provided the biography can be undeleted at REFUND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If the article is no longer there, only the original contributor is likely to notice its absence and go to REFUND. Removing an article of any not-\very-popular subject makes it unlikely that any possible improvement will ever be made, and if it becomes popular and a new article is started, the new contributor will not hav ether benefit of the previous work. I think it very much matters that before we delete, a second person see it. I've been working on prods since the time I was the only one actually screening them 12 years ago, and I don't think I've ever deleted a prod that I've placed--but then, it's never occurred to be because there is no need to do so. All prods get cleared; there hasn't been a backlog of more than a day or two that I can remember. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Unclear language in Objecting section

Under "Objecting," the text currently says "If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism. In addition, a tag may be restored if removed by a banned user or blocked user evading a block." The middle sentence is somewhat ambiguous: does "This excludes..." mean you may restore or must not restore? The third sentence suggests the former, but an editor might not read it so closely. I would suggest changing the middle sentence to read more straightforwardly "Removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, may be restored." (Assuming that is the intent.)--agr (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold, That looks right to me. ~Kvng (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I made the change.--agr (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Amendment of PROD rationale as a form of objection?

Something I hadn't seen before is the author/subject of an article editing the text of a PROD to remove the policy link that I had given. This is not really the same as a previous discussion about amending PROD texts, as it was displacing the policy-based rationale. I decided to interpret their edit as being a form of objection, so deleted the PROD and opened an AfD. I am curious about whether others would follow the same course and, if so, whether the second paragraph at Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting should be adjusted to specify such alteration as an objection? AllyD (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

AllyD, the way you handled it is safe. I would support adding something to the section you reference indicating that if intent is unclear, assume it is an objection. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this happens often enough to justify writing explicit new legislation. Reyk _YO! 16:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen this specific action before, but I have seen inexperienced editors object on the talk page or directly in the text of the article. In my opinion, anything that can reasonably be interpreted as an objection should be treated as such, even if the editor doesn't remove the template. pburka (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the wording to accommodate the other types of objections discussed here. Please discuss further here if there are any problems with these changes. ~Kvng (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding proposing deletion

Is the article "2022 Indian presidential election" suitable for Wikipedia, as it doesn't cite any sources as well the recent edits regularly change the candidates without any references. I wrote regarding this on a recent editor's talk page ([1]) as well as Article's talk page ([2]). Should it be nominated for deletion? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• This looks to be a topic article in need of normal editing and referencing. If you did seek to nominate it for deletion, I doubt it would be appropriate to use this PROD process, which is limited to non-controversial deletions. AllyD (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  I did not nominated it for deletion, I decided to discuss it first, the issue is there is almost no information available on candidates for election, only thing that can be mentioned is potential candidates, but the article has already listed the candidates who are contesting without citing any source. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate venue to discuss it. (This page is for discussing the deletion process itself.) I'd recommend the article's talk page, or the talk page of one of the associated projects. pburka (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Previous version of article PROD'd

Hello, I'm asking any admins visiting this talk page to wade in here. I was looking through current PRODs and found an eligible, PROD-tagged article which I deleted. Then, I noticed that a previous version of the same article had been PROD'd and deleted years ago so I restored the article. But I wondered if this restoration was correct...this article had been PROD'd before but it was an entirely different version. So, would the "not PROD'd before" rule apply? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Liz, to me it all depends on the subject of the articles not the content. If an article on a subject is deleted via PROD, it is ineligible to be PROD'd again. The content of the two separate articles does not matter. ~ GB fan 15:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

My view is that if an article has been previously deleted by PROD, and then restored or re-created, it should not be subject to PROD again - instead take to AFD. GiantSnowman 15:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Recreating a PRODed article amounts to contesting the PROD, so it isn't appropriate to use PROD again. Unless the articles were about different subjects, such as two people who happened to have the same name. Hut 8.5 17:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I just came across this page, full of currently PROD'd articles that have already gone through a deletion process: Wikipedia:Database reports/PRODed articles with deletion logs. Do we de-PROD them all, GiantSnowman and Hut 8.5? I believe the nominations were all done in good faith because most editors do not think to check the logs for articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• I see several of these PRODs (of Brookside characters) were rightly struck out because of prior PRODs many years ago. As for the others, some of these previous actions were procedural (e.g. "Deleted to make way for move"); some were immediate Copyvio deletions. The larger number had previously been G11 or A7 speedy-deletions; perhaps a CSD nomination followed by an admin's review and deletion could be regarded as a prior discussion, though WP:PRODNOM ask if an article has "has ever been, discussed at AfD/FfD" which is quite specific. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, the restriction on placing PRODs is for articles which have been through PROD or AfD before, there's no restriction on PRODing something which has been speedily deleted in the past. The policy does say this in a footnote. Hut 8.5 10:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes footnote 9 is clear that recreation is a means of contesting it however I would suggest adding that (like G4) this is by topic not title thus a page PROD deleted under a different title can't be deleted with PROD but an article deleted via PROD or AFD on a different subject can still be PRODED, say an article on a footballer is created at Joe Bloggs and gets deleted via PROD or AFD and later someone writes a musician at that title and that topic is also deemed nn then the new article can also be PRODED though a warning message comes up if the title has previously had an AFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

If this is indeed the policy, it should be stated unambiguously on this policy page. Something like: "Even an article on the same subject that was previously deleted via PROD may not be PRODed again". And probably tell people how to check that too. This would save people a lot of time and effort. This aspect of the policy (or interpretation of it) increases bureaucracy; we should try to help editors by not increasing it further by being unclear. EddieHugh (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Prod for Nav Temps?

Is there a Prod for navigation templates? I tried tagging a prod to Template:Godzilla-related media but it requested to "Please use PROD only on articles." Armegon (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion? DonIago (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Contested PROD?

Hello, all,

I have reviewed a lot of PROD'd articles but I have run into a new situation for me. I just deleted this article, Patrick McGuire (solicitor), that was a heavily promotion-focused bio for an attorney. Enormous amounts of content had been added at some points, most of which was later removed by regular Wikipedia editors. Everything in the PROD looked legit so I deleted the page. Since it was so promotional, I took note of the biggest editors of the page so I could look at their contributions later.

So, I found that it was edited by a paid editor for a media company, ShimsCabot. In their paid editor statement on their user page, they state that they will not contest any removal of content on articles by other Wikipedia editors. Well, I went back and looked at the talk page of Patrick McGuire (solicitor) and they initiated a discussion about the Proposed deletion where they objected to it. It was a discussion between them and the editor that tagged the page, Tagishsimon. I assume their declaration of paid editor status meant that they wouldn't just remove the PROD tag so they started the discussion. Now, would you consider this a legitimate "contested PROD" that I should restore and send to AFD? Or does a paid editor's objections to the deletion of their client's page count for less than a standard contestation? Does it matter than it was a discussion on the talk page and not the simple removal of the PROD tag which is the method specified in WP:DEPROD?

And yes, ideally, I would have read the talk page first and brought this question to this talk page BEFORE the deletion occurred. But I think the discussion here is useful in case of future encounters with paid editors. Thanks for your sharing your thoughts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Prods are supposed to be uncontroversial without qualifications for paid editors so it would be best to restore and either take to AFD or nominate for G11 in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• It should be restored and sent to AFD. In the Objecting section of the policy it says, "If anyone removes a proposed deletion tag from a page or otherwise indicates an objection, the proposed deletion is canceled." emphasis in original It doesn't have to be a removal of the PROD tag, any way that some indicates they object to the deletion is enough. In this case they specifically stated they objected to the deletion. ~ GB fan 10:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Atlantic and GB that current written policy doesn't have a carve out for this situation. However I suspect that such a carve out might have community consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I also agree, breaking a promise not to do something doesn't qualify unless its a formal editing restriction. It should be restored and sent to AFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the article. ~ GB fan 10:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I realise this is not a space for discussion of the page, so if anyone is interested, please see my Sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ShimsCabot/sandbox for my proposals to update the page. Thank you ShimsCabot (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't Delete

I believe that this page has a lot of value. Dr. Glenn Hurst represents a beacon of light and change for underserved rural communities in Iowa. People in those communities should be able to easily find information about their candidate which includes on this page. Aaafram (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aaafram: If you believe deletion of a nominated page would be controversial you should simply remove the template. But this page is the wrong place to contest specific deletions. pburka (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Pburka:, the case in question is an AfD, so removing the template is definitely the wrong thing for the user to do. Far better to make their case for retention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Hurst. AllyD (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I assumed it was a PROD since they were asking here. pburka (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Bot task notification

A BRFA has been filed to notify editors when articles they've created are prodded. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FastilyBot 16 if interested in participating in the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Allowing 2nd Prod in specific cases

I have been working my way through old promotional tags (2009) and PROD/AFDing as necessary. One recent PROD of Capital Trust was properly declined by an Admin since it was previously PROD in 2015. So now time and resources will be wasted using AFD. I would love to find a middle ground here that allows a 2nd PROD of obvious incompatible with Wikipedia standards that have long-standing (10+ years) tags and were previously PRODed (5+ years). Slywriter (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that would lead to more time and resources being wasted on arguments about whether an article should or should not have had a second PROD applied than would be wasted by an AfD discussion. PROD works well because it is so simple. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly can understand that point. Just dealing with such obvious Promo and NCORP fails that seem excessive to use AfD. But yeah, I can see where even a narrow exception would be open to abuse and disagreement. I'll leave this open for further opinion. Fire and Forget AfDs don't take much extra time for me, so can live with it either way. Slywriter (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Phil Bridger. It's a slippery slope. We already have a lot of misuse. Your other option along the way for obvious promo is WP:G11. ~Kvng (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur with this approach as well. Yes, it's weird sometimes, but it keeps things simple. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Prodding redirects

In the PROD category this past week, I've found Drancia Saga and East Timorese English both listed at prod despite being redirects. The main page for WP:PROD says that redirects cannot be prodded. Is there a way to modify the fancy automatic prod tools so that they can catch things like this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Or make redirects proddable. Reyk _YO! 05:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• I don't see why PROD can't be used for all types of pages (or at least most). Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • PROD was intended to reduce the strain on AfD and FfD. Redirects have their own deletion process. pburka (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Seeking clarity

I am seeking a clarification. When an article gets a prod tag, a tag is placed on the talk page. If the deletion is contested and the prod removed from the article, it is proper to remove the OldProd tag from the talk page? --Whiteguru (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know if it was a set rule or not, but leaving the old prod template in place does tell future editors that the article is now ineligible for PROD and must therefore be discussed at AfD for any further deletion considerations. -2pou (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The oldprod template has been available for a long time, sometimes used, sometimes not, so it is still necessary to check article history in case there is a prior PROD, but the Twinkle-based PROD processing was extended to check and create it in May 2019: see announcement discussion. When they are available on the Talk page, though, I find oldprod useful in indicating previous thought about an article. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Remaining on the talk page in case a PROD request has been rejected is the very purpose of the {{old prod}} tag so, yes, it is improper to remove it. Since articles can be submitted for PROD only once, the purpose of the tag is to alert others, including an examining administrator, to the previous PROD attempt should somebody submit it again, so that they'll know that the new submission is invalid. Largoplazo (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Imbalance

I'm concerned that things are out of balance here again. There is little activity at WP:PRODPATROL. There is no way I know of to review work administrators are doing in reviewing proposals before deleting expired PRODs. PRODers have the benefit of a Twinkle feature for proposing deletions. I'm not aware of a complementary tool to assist patrollers. ~Kvng (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• The WP:PRODSORT list gives in-flight PRODs; AAlertBOT also reports them to topic projects which have requested such notifications (example from yesterday) and also re-reports them by outcome (recent example showing a mix of dePROD and deletion outcomes). Perhaps some adaptation of these tools could help meet your concerns? Personally, I regularly review the PRODSORT report and occasionally find entries there worthy of a dePROD or, if less certain, sometimes add a Talk page comment for others' consideration. AllyD (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think that the situation is as bad as the OP makes out. I had forgotten that the WP:PRODPATROL project even existed, but I regularly skim through User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary and remove PROD tags when I believe that an article should not be deleted or should be discussed at WP:AFD, or if I see one on a page that is not an article. I see other editors doing the same. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's where the imbalance I noted seems to be coming from. ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing fewer PRODs in total now and fewer awful PRODs. As per usual, I'm seeing WP:ATD options for a significant portion of the PRODs in the queue. ~Kvng (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Editors who repeatedly fail to consider WP:ATDs before PRODding or AfDing should be banned from PRODding and AfDing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not keeping score on a per-editor basis. I would if I thought there was a real possibility of consequences. Also, I'm not interested in spending any more time at WP:ANI. ~Kvng (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion Criteria #4

This criteria currently reads The page is eligible for proposed deletion: the page is not a redirect, never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never subject to a deletion discussion.

I believe this should be changed to The page is eligible for proposed deletion: the page is not a redirect, never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never subject to a deletion discussion that did not close as "delete". If the article was recreated after being deleted by consensus, I believe it is less likely to controversial to delete, not more likely.

Raised due to the relisting comment at this AfD; pinging Liz as a courtesy. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose because if it is mainly identical to the previous version it can be speedy deleted as G4. If it's not mainly identical then it needs another AfD because it may produce a different result due to the changes, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see how that is different from any new article, though; we're not saying the article must be deleted, we're just seeing if it can be uncontroversially deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Recreating the page (with different content) is akin to disputing the original deletion. pburka (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Puzzlement I don't see what you're going for. The only change you're proposing is to add that an article is eligible for PROD if it is has been discussed at AFD at least once, and at least one of those discussions did not end in Delete. But you explain it with reference to whether the article was recreated after it was deleted by consensus. I don't see what the explanation has to do with the change to the language that you're requesting.

I also don't understand the rationale behind the change that the additional language does imply. That an AFD didn't end in Delete usually means that there was an objection to the article's deletion, which does disqualify the article from PROD. Largoplazo (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the line and never subject to a deletion discussion that did not close as "delete"; it says articles can't be prodded if they have been subject to a deletion discussion, unless all of those discussions closed as "delete". BilledMammal (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• The quoted example is not the only example of this situation, but isn't the actual problem the low level of participation at AfD these days? Personally I think a second AfD is the correct approach when a new article instance is created (leaving aside those which fall under CSD G4). It allows re-evaluation against the discussion which previously established non-notability of the subject, including assessment of new evidence of subsequent notability. However, if no such evidence is presented, what should be done? Rather than a sequence of relisting the AfD multiple times and then perhaps closing as no-consensus (which would contradict the first AfD's conclusion), perhaps the better process in these cases would be that when this second AfD reaches the relist point without policy-based keep arguments, it should be closed as delete, reaffirming the first AfD decision. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment User:pburka's comment is very persuasive here – recreating the page is in effect a way of disputing the deletion, so the page probably shouldn't be valid for prodding any more (with the possible exception of if the page is written about an entirely different subject). However, there should probably be some way for non-administrators to flag up a page as a potential recreation; administrators can just check the deleted history to know whether the page is a valid WP:CSD#G4 or not, but non-administrators don't have that ability. None of our current deletion processes are usable in that case (with the exception of AfD which is very heavy-weight for an article which usually turns out to be speedily deletable), so I can't think of anything beyond potentially {{admin help}} that could be used. --ais523 15:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Mandate optional steps to objection and reduce repeated PRODs?

Section title is a tongue-twister, I know. Sorry.

Currently, we encourage — but do not require — contesting editors to

1. put {{oldprod}} on the talk page,
2. put {{deprod}} on the proposer's talk page,
3. add a talk page section explaining why PROD is inappropriate,
4. or improve the article to make the criticism irrelevant.

All of these serve to ensure that the PROD will not be repeated.

I think that this policy is insufficient in the case of old pages, with a large number of small edits by a small number of dedicated viewers, that unfamiliar users only rarely "stumble across". There, the records of an old, contested PROD may easily get lost in the revision history. (Full disclosure: I write this because I suspect my recently contested PROD for List of Cornish dialect words will likely fall into this category.)

PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions, and must be easily contestable; obviously options 3-4 require too much effort to make mandatory. But 1-2 strike me as relatively straightforward. Therefore, I think that we should make performing at least one of the above steps required, in addition to encouraging all four.

Any objections? Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Any mandatory burden to record previous prods should be on nominators. And tools like twinkle already add oldprod to the talk page on nomination. pburka (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying ATD

So, I've added some text to the 'During Nomination' directions suggesting that ATDs be incorporated in describing deletion rationale. While this is already mentioned in the before nomination section, it seems to go routinely unused, just based on my recent survey of today's Prods. Basically, if there's an alternative to deletion, a PROD on an article won't ever be entirely uncontroversial, and should go to a full discussion if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I quite liked your self-reverted change, though maybe better between the review and confirm steps. That said, a case with an appropriate ATD wouldn't be showing in the list of current PRODs? Personally, I use redirects when reviewing long-term articles of dubious notability, as well as sometimes recommending them when commenting on PRODs & AfDs; however I am not so sure it should be regarded as an obligation: identifying a suitable ATD is sometimes more an art than a procedure. AllyD (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd personally like PRODDERs to give a valid WP:DEL-REASON and indicate they've considered WP:ATDs. I am inclined to WP:DEPROD where this is not done. I'm not convinced we should make this part of PROD policy. PROD should remain a lightweight process and that means PRODs should be easy to do and easy to object to. If any reasoning is required, that should be done at WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Logs

It seems that unlike this gadget, there is none that keeps track of all the articles prodded by a user. Donaldd23 prodded Puthiya Vaarpugal and it got deleted, but thankfully I noticed, got it undeleted and expanded it further. The article wasn't perfect, but it didn't deserve to get prodded as there are in fact many sources. Wonder how many more old Tamil film articles he prodded since he does not have a log unlike me, who works tirelessly to keep old Tamil films from being deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Staffing at WP:PRODPATROL is variable and usually thin. When I'm actively patrolling there are times when I judge up to a quarter of the prods at the end of their wait to be unlikely to be deleted at AfD. I estimate, at those times, without and effective patrol, we are losing 10-20 articles with potential per day. ~Kvng (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"doesn't appear to be notable" is not a PROD reason

Having taken a look over some of the current entries in Prod, it feels like this a forum for editors to circumvent normal collaborative deletion procedure by deleting by stealth.

Some of the reasons given are not prod worthy at all. If you are an editor and you find a page that does not appear notable to you, that is not a reason to delete it.

If you are nominating an article to be PRODed then, the onus is on you to give evidence that it is not notable.

Example: Editor A sees article on "xyz". The article has a few references. Editor A declares that is must be non-notable and submits it to Prod. The article is stealthily deleted. However a few minutes of research would have found much more articles on "xyz" thus demonstrating its notability.

my worry here is that there is a institutional bias in favour of editor labour that supports removing articles and against editor labour that supports researching topics prior to deleting them Gumlau (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit that my checking of PRODSORT can be sporadic, but when I do, I don't tend to be seeing scenarios of minimal-rationale PRODs being attempted on articles which carry some durable references - and if this did arise, I would expect the closing admin to reject it with a "use AfD instead" message rather than acquiesce in stealth deletion. AllyD (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@AllyD, I do not assume that admins are effectively doing this screening. It is difficult to learn what admin behavior is since non-admins are unable to see the articles that admins delete. ~Kvng (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it can be difficult for "the rest of us" to get a full view. That said, I have seen quite a few PRODs of articles on my watchlist which have been rejected at the end of the period, and also others coming through to AfD for fuller discussion. AllyD (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Gumlau, do you have any specific examples of articles that don't appear to be notable that are easily shown to be notable? ~ GB fan 16:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is required for both PROD and AfD. If you identify an editor that is consistently not following this policy, please bring it to our and their attention. ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Lest you trigger the "WP:BEFORE is just an essaynot a policy or guideline" folks, let's say "following WP:DEL is required, and if deleting based on WP:N, that means insufficient sources exist, which isn't a claim one can assert without searching" :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Updated per below. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is not actually an essay, but part of the instructions on how to nominate articles for deletion. Therefore it has the same standing as other parts of those instructions, such as that a deletion discussion should be created. It simply says how deletion policy should be implemented. In the case of WP:PROD we don't even get that far - it says "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". That is clearly not true for an article subject that hasn't been investigated. To take this any further we would need to look at specific cases, rather than the generalities given here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If you see a sucky prod rationale, delete the PROD notice--problem solved, and maybe people will eventually get the hint. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are nominating an article to be PRODed then, the onus is on you to give evidence that it is not notable. The onus is on the creator to provide evidence at the time of creation that the topic is notable. Why should the editor proposing it is deleted be expected to spend 10+ minutes searching for sources when the editor who created it spent less than a minute doing so?

An effort proportional to the effort spent creating the article is reasonable; anything more is unreasonable and creates WP:FAIT issues. BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

PRODding an AfC-approved article

One of AfC volunteers (see discussion) said that PRODding an AfC-approved article would be "controversial" (or inappropriate) rather than "uncontroversial". I wonder whether allowing deletion of such pages without contest would be okay. George Ho (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You know that one experienced editor has reviewed it and found it worthy. If you think they made a mistake, be nice and contact them first or be less nice and start an AfD discussion. Prodding these strikes me as passive aggressive but I'm an AfC reviewer so I may be overreacting. ~Kvng (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I had no objection to deletion of one of AfC-approved articles that I created (the article that you approved). I even didn't seek undeletion of it. Well... I tried seeking reliable secondary sources but to no avail. George Ho (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm also an AfC reviewer (although admittedly not the most active at the moment), and for what it's worth, I would not take offense if someone PRODded an article I had accepted. AfC reviewers are volunteers just like any other editor, and it's simply that they're channeling their volunteering through AfC at the moment. They aren't infallible, and their acceptance of an article should not be deemed a blessing that makes the article unPRODable. I will admit that if I am considering an article for PROD and see that it was reviewed and approved by an editor I recognize and whose judgment I respect, I might hold off; but that's because that makes me question my own fallible judgment, not that the reviewer's judgment is itself unreviewable. ("Hmmm... maybe I'm wrong, maybe the article is worth keeping after all if that guy approved it.") And that being said, sometimes I'll say, "Yeah, this deserves deletion" despite that.

But to have the article unPRODable if it came in via AfC suggests that an acceptance at AfC is equivalent to an objection to PROD by the AfC reviewer in advance; and I don't think that's warranted. TJRC (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

What is the procedure for an article that is PROD'd then moved to draftspace

There is a draft that currently is tagged for PROD; however, when it was tagged it was still an article making it eligible to be deleted via this process. Since the article's deletion was proposed, the article was draftified by the original creator and one of the main contributors (but not only substantial contributor) to the page. The {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag is still on the page putting it in CAT:PROD. Should the page be moved back to article space or should the {{proposed deletion/dated}} template be removed? (Apologies if this has been answered in the archives, but I was unable to find it when trying to look through them) TartarTorte 16:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The prod template should be removed from the draft. Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)