Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

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)

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 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:

1. Decline the PROD on a procdural basis;
2. Use our judgment and delete if we feel necessary;
3. 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2025

2806:10AE:E:7FC:4480:E5E1:9DCB:EE10 (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Pages previously deleted via ANI consensus eligible for PROD?

At Wikipedia:Database reports/PRODed articles with deletion logs, dozens of pages are listed as previously being deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Jaguar#Proposed deletion of all these pages back in 2012. They were recreated by a different user last month. ANI isn't XFD, but it's not clear (at least to me) if this quasi-deletion discussion affects their eligibility for PROD. Do these qualify as uncontroversial deletions? Pinging North8000, who seemingly tagged them for deletion. ✗plicit 04:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

So, might not the bigger question be, "Why did someone recreate all of these, and might not they be eligible for mass deletion as disruptive creations again?" But I have no particular problem with PROD application in this circumstance. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 217#mass-creation of china township articles, they were created in mass by a single contributor, who has been blocked indefinitely.

WP:PROD##cite_note-8 states, "Any page deleted via this process and then recreated is not subject to speedy deletion under criterion G4, as recreation is a way of contesting the proposed deletion." So I wondered whether or not this logic applied to pages that were neither speedy deleted or discussed at XFD. ✗plicit 05:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Though that thread used the phrase "Proposed deletion", that appears to have just been an unfortunate failure to avoid using in an ordinary sense a phrase that has special meaning here. It wasn't a single person nominating the pages, followed by an administrator summarily deleting them. The proposer wrote "I don't think anyone suggests tagging them all for AfD would be really useful, so we can just as well have the discussion here and now." What the user was proposing was an AFD-equivalent, not as a PROD-equivalent. No one objected to proceeding in that manner, and numerous users contributed to the virtually unanimous consensus.

To underscore what I consider to be the clear use of "proposed" in its ordinary sense, I note that on the same page is another section titled "Proposed resolution". Another ordinary use of the word "proposed" by a person making a proposal.

I believe that WP:PROD is irrelevant here and G4 is applicable. Largoplazo (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

If this is the situation that I'm assuming it is, I was doing NPP work and don't know if I chose the best or right method for this situation. The creator created a large amount of articles using some automated process (most were created at a rate of 7 new articles per minute) and was and is currently indef blocked. The only source was some type of census database and the only content was census data. I actually still passed the ones that were towns (with NGeo providing the justification for passing those) but Prodded the ones that were things like subdistricts. I believe that the vast majority were not previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)