Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 6

message: Why does prod cover only articles? Why not any page? It's faster than starting a IFD, MFD, etc. 72.139.119.165 22:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a very bad idea for images.  People rarely go look at the actual image page, and the image deletion tag wouldn't show up on pages where the image is used.  Mangojuicetalk 00:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bug was fixed, images can now be undeleted. 72.139.119.165 00:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, what I mean is, if someone happens onto an article page where the article is proposed for deletion, they notice, because of the obvious notice on the top of the page.  If someone happens onto an article that includes an IMAGE that is proposed for deletion, they wouldn't notice at all.  But in any case, prod is rather unnecessary for images, since WP:IFD debates hardly ever get any participation; basically, when no one comments, unlike an WP:AFD debate, the image is deleted and no further time is wasted.  Mangojuicetalk 02:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this, I once nominated an image for deletion, and there was no responce, and it was deleted. However, there is no point wating time on two edits, one putting the tag up on the image and the other on the ifd page, it is in fact not so easy to fill out . Using prod will make deleting pages simpler. 72.139.119.165 18:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm..  I dunno, it might be a reasonable idea.  I for one would like to see copyvio-based deletions replaced with a PROD-like process.  I might bring this up on Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion; folks there are more familiar with the pros and cons of the IfD process.  Oh, and registering an account would probably be a good idea. :)  Mangojuicetalk 23:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Make that 3+ edits, you are supposed to notify the uploader on his talk page and put a notice in the image caption of articles that use the image (if any) when you list on IFD too. The caption thing is usualy treated as optional, but if you fail to notify the uploader the closing admin will usualy do it and re-list the image rather than deleting. Anyway for copyvios I generaly just strike out the false license tag with an apropriate explanation and tag it as "no license and drop a note on the uploaders talk page (and if I forget OrphanBot will usualy do so after a few days), it works pretty much like prod after that. --Sherool (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually do not, and I suspect most users would not as well notify the uploader (unless it is a controversial  case or the uploder needs to be notified). 72.139.119.165 19:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles 

message: I've noticed a recent trend toward applying PRODs to categories. As these are not articles, it doesn't seem to be an appropriate procedure. (C.f. WP:CfD.) But there are some categories that are warded by bots, so if you try to remove the prod from the category it does a revert. What approoach would you suggest in this case? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should consider whether we wish to allow prodding of categories. Meanwhile though I don't think it's a good idea to prod them. I don't know what you mean about bots automatically reverting the category - why would they do this, how are people supposed to edit them, and how'd they get the prod tag on it in the first place? Deco 19:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I cant reacall any bots that have been approved to remove PROD tags, if you see this please elave me a talk page message with the difs.  Thanks from the Bot Approvals Group. — xaosflux Talk 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As for PROD'ing categories, off the topic it seems ok to me for sparsley populated categories (maybe under 5 pages, no sub cats), but would need a lot more discussion before implementing.  The major downside is that either bots will be requried to process the change, or editors will be required to do it so we dont leave redlinked categoreis on pages. — xaosflux Talk 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod was originally proposed to reduce the grown of AfD, which was considered excessive. As far as i can tell, there is no such problem for CfD. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 11:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, categories get a lot less traffic than articles. Even on highly used, good categories, no one might notice a prod. —Centrx→talk • 00:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Bots seem to revert tag removals on categories, because many categories lack much of any bytage, and the subbed PROD tag greatly increases the size of them, but removing it will cause a vandalism alert due to the massive size reduction. Should bots process categories the same way as articles? If you tried to clean up a category with an excessive article sized header, the same thing would happen. 132.205.44.134 02:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would not support PROD on categories. As it is, few people notice maintenance notices on categories. If you don't generate some noticable events to categories, no one will notice. As for sizes of categories, I've noticed that some WikiProjects promote the use of categories down to two entry (with no possibility of growth) ones... As WP:CFD is not overloaded, there would be no need for it. Besides we already have a CSD for empty categories. 132.205.44.134 02:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD on categories 

message: (snip)
:::Support this. However, I'm not sure why this discussion's on WT:PROD; make sure nobody objects on, say, Template talk:Hangon and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion before you make the change. --ais523 14:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Why did I put it here? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:hangon|hangon]]}} revamp / somewhat major {{[[Template:db-meta|db-meta]]}} modification 

message: AntiVandalBot reprods by reverting things... I don't see why this should happen. 70.51.10.144 08:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the unusual bot interactions that comes up from time to time. If a prodded article is blanked (for instance), one of the TB2 clones will revert the blanking, restoring the prod tag (which many editors will argue is correct behaviour anyway; vandalism is often seen as not an attempt to deprod). Then DumbBOT will notice that the date on the prod tag doesn't match the time it was added (the time of the revert, from its point of view) and complain... --ais523 08:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I had the feeling someone was actually monitoring these "date mismatch" articles! Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AntiVandalBot reprods 

message: I've noticed on occasion some Talk pages that appear to have been created simply as an act of vandalism, i.e., the vandal clicks on the Talk tab, enters some gibberish, then saves the page. I've usually just deleted the entire contents of the page, with a comment like "removed entire useless contents as vandalism". Examples: Talk:Order of the Holy Spirit, Talk:My Left Foot (book). Is there a way to delete these pages entirely so that they can be properly created when the need arises? Or is simply leaving an empty page the appropriate thing to do? If so, will this confuse the bots? — Loadmaster 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If 1) it is clearly and obviously not a genuine attempt to discuss the article and 2)there is nothing else in the talk page history then I'd propose it for speedy deletion under one of the WP:CSD criteria G1, G2, or G3, using   }, or  respectively.  GRBerry 03:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just blank it.  Blanking articles is a bad thing because the lack of a redlink may confuse people.. but a blank talk page is no big deal.  The worst thing that can happen there is that someone may feel they should check the discussion, click on it, and see nothing there.  Frankly, deleting such pages is a waste of admin time -- there's really no need for it, and it's a burden on us.  Mangojuicetalk 12:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless Talk pages 

message: I PROD'ed this article and it was immediately unPROD'ed by the creator and only contributor. Does this now go on to 'AfD'? Alternatively if you don't think it needs deleting at all I will shut up about it :) JPilborough 16:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a blatant advertisement. I have deleted it. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for the sorts of things that can be deleted immediately. —Centrx→talk • 17:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nozomi_online]] 

message: LEts say an article was prodded at 16:00 on Oct 29. It is now something like 20:16 on Nov 3rd. Is it now ok to delete the article, or should I wait until 00:00 Nov 4? Thanks in advance for your help.  youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#120 hours? produced no obvious consensus.  Normally, there is enough backlog on other administrative tasks (speedy deletion, AFD, etc...) that you could keep busy on those until any arbitrary cushion time limit was exceeded.  But neither will anyone care if you go ahead and delete it, after all, more than 120 hours have passed, provided both times are UTC or both are your local timezone.  GRBerry 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete it even earlier if it is complete crap. —Centrx→talk • 06:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, it has been a full 5 days, so go ahead and delete.  But when it comes to processing the Oct. 29 *category*, I think it's better to wait until Nov. 4 so you don't have to check each one to see if it's been a full 5 days or not.  Mangojuicetalk 19:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or use User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary which is time order. -- JLaTondre 19:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, The above bot is exactly what I was looking for. Cheers.  youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question from a new admin 

message: Does it matter too much if I can't contact the creator of an article I have just proposed for deletion? In the page history their username is redlinked, so I can't get to them. Is this a problem? The article I have proposed is Tom littler, in case you were wondering.--CarrotMan 16:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Post on their Talk page, regardless of whether it's blue or red. The 'new messages' banner works for both old and new users. --ais523 16:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply, but when I looked in the list of pages I found the article in (so I could find out the creator), it had gone! I think that's because some admin carried out my proposal, so it no longer exists.--CarrotMan 19:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been speedily deleted as WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G1. There's no need to give a warning now the article's been deleted. --ais523 10:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unable to contact creator of article 

message: A suggestion to extend PROD to other namespaces was made by User:Tgheretfort here. Comments welcome. (Radiant) 12:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extend PROD to other namespaces? 

message: If possible I would like to request that this page be completely clear about where the prod tag should be placed. I.e. whether it should be on the article page versus the talk page. Right now I read the text as inferring that the tag should go on the article page. However some users still insist on placing prod tags on the article talk page, with the likely result of hiding it from most visitors who wouldn't bother to read the discussion. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fairly obvious that it should go at the top of the article page.  The directions say that you should put the notice on the top of "it," where the antecedent is "article."  But there's no reason we can't amend "it" to read "the article."  (I'm sure some people put the prod notice on the talk page in good faith, not realizing they're hiding it, but certainly it's a bad idea.)  NickelShoe (Talk) 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be on the article, because this encourages people to improve the article to address the concerns given. Feel free to clarify the page if you think it helps. (Radiant) 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better on the article, as it's more likely to be seen by someone who would remove it if it deserves removing. New users often don't know about the talk page, and prod is meant to be non-controversial, not non-noticeable. -- nae'blis 05:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well it's not obvious to everybody because I've received complains from prod-ers when I removed the prod tag from the talk page for precdural reasons. :-) Some people apparently need it in black-and-white. But I'll go ahead and modify the instructions. I just wasn't sure if that would be reverted. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prod tag on article ''versus'' talk page 

message: Please see Template talk:Prod#Miscellaneous Prod for a discussion on expanding the scope of Proposed Deletions. -- nae'blis 05:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous prods for miscellaneous pages? 

message: "*Any deletion via this process which is taken to deletion review is implicitly a contested deletion, and the article may therefore be immediately restored by any admin without discussion."
This statement was added a few months ago  by User:RobertG ( a great editor, btw) with what seems to be no discussion. To me, this seems to take some of the power out of PROD, especially as Wikipedia grows and grows and grows and more people try to dump articles about their non-notable whatevers on here. This could lead us to revisiting tons of deletions from whenever. If this comment is to be kept, maybe there should be an expiry time (perhaps one month).  youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A portion to which I object 

message: As it currently stands, any user can PROD an article, and not long after, if no one watches, or missed it in their watchlist, it disappears without question.  Presently, nomination guidelines merely suggest contacting an article's creator.  This opens PROD up as a tool of abuse.  Not only should notification of the creator be mandatory, I feel that all editors of a nominated article should be notified, as well as any WikiProject that has tagged the article.  --AlexWCovington (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no notification requirement under any deletion process. This gets discussed ever so often (here's the last time I recall) and each time there has not been consensus to make it a requirement. Prod is actually a safer one to miss than the other deletion processes. You can still object to a prod after the article has been deleted and it will be restored (see WP:PROD#Contesting after deletion). Deleted articles still show up in your watchlist as redlinks if you use the edit option (Special:Watchlist/edit). -- JLaTondre 14:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Alexwcovington.  This can be used/abused as a way of deleting articles with low traffic just because no one's checked said articles in a few days.  It flies under the radar, since only those who check the article will see it; it is not listed under the list of articles to delete, so only one person is making a judgment as to its notability.  Notability is not the presence of an article on an active user's watchlist, but the effect of this project is to make that a de facto notability requirement. Calbaer 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a project to monitor proposed deletion, see Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling.  I'd say most PRODs receive a check from the project members, although I can't prove that.  And the closing admin is another set of eyes; they are supposed to check that the article is a legitimate PROD.  We regularly get articles at AFD that were either PROD'ed when they should not have been or where the closing admin decided that an AFD was needed.  And any PROD deletion is automatically overturned upon request - in addition to the pointer that JLaTondre gave, see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Proposed deletions.  There really isn't a significant risk of abuse.  GRBerry 09:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that it's less visible than AfDs and that the period of review should thus be longer.  I see why having AfDs for everything would be overkill, but I do believe that there are users biased against certain types of articles, who want to delete articles that are obviously notable (to relatively unbiased users who would take a minute to check, which I doubt all closing admins do).  Such users count on those with interest in the topics not checking a watchlist or the article on a weekly basis.  I just removed a PROD on such an article (about a blog more popular than Andrew Sullivan's) just after the end of its 5th day. Calbaer 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Compare Uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:NRV, a similar procedure one grade above speedy deletion. The difference is that it is only permitted for recent articles. Alksub 22:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification and abuse problems 

message: As I observed (correctly?) the tagging with template:prod seems not to appear on the watchlist. Is that ok.? --ThT 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should show up, and prodders (is that a word?) should be using good edit summaries to show their intentions. An article that is deleted through prod will not show that fact on your watchlist though, as the watchlist does not track deletions of any kind at this time. Is that what you're referring to? -- nae'blis 15:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you have set minor edits not to appear in recent changes?  People shouldn't be marking additions of prod as minor, but it can happen.  Mangojuicetalk 16:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor edits appear in my watchlist. I'm referring to this tagging. It doesn't show up on my watchlist. I tested with other articles which have their tagging visible in the watchlist, but I cannot see why there's a difference. Could somebody check this? --ThT 20:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that the watchlist shows only the most recent change to an article. If there are later changes that don't remove the tag, those will show up instesd. But in that case "doubles" is IMO a very unhelpful edit summeryu. i try to always use the summery "Propose deletion (prod)" when addign a prod tagDES (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion seems not to appear on watchlist 

message: The page says at the end:
<quote>To ensure an extra pair of eyes, an article should not be deleted by the same person who placed the tag on it.</quote>
I think this shouldn't apply to a page that also has a  tag from an other user, since that is an extra pair of eyes which looked at it. Od Mishehu 11:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that makes sense.  Let's not bother putting it in the policy, though, it's kinda instruction creep.  Mangojuicetalk 11:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of {{tl|prod2}}-ed articles by original nominator 

message: After the article Robert Rosner was uned (see here),   reinstated it. After it was removed a second time,  re-instated it again. In the edit summary, he said please do not remove until issues discussed on talk page. I think that this article should be AfDed, not PRODed. Od Mishehu 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your understanding of policy is correct; after a contested proposed deletion, the article should be brought rather to Articles for deletion. However, prod tags are occasionally reinserted, e.g by mistake or by misunderstanding. In such a case, I would simply remove it and notify the editor directly, either with the template  or a personal note. There would only be a reason to raise the issue further if the clarification is ignored or contested or if prod tags are reinserted repeatedly.--Tikiwont 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Took it to AfD, said something to Oscar. Mangojuicetalk 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Robert Rosner]] 

message: Looking at articles where  says have different tagging times from the times written in the tags, I founds a few cases where a user had placed a  on these articles. Although in these cases the users who did this also removed the  tag, I think that the fact that this was done repeatedly means tyhe question needs to be asked: Is the adding of a  tag considered a contesting to the deletion? Od Mishehu 06:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual way this happens is that someone places a speedy; the author places a hangon and gives an explanation. The admin reviews it, decides that the article doesn't meet speedy or has potential merit, but that it cannot meet the usual criteria as it stands, and changes it to a prod to give time for improvement. At this point the hangon should be removed, because it no longer applies. The prod can now be contested by the author simply by removing the prod tag if he improves the article--he doesn't need anyone to concurr. Normally, the admin who did this would keep track and check if the article actually did get improved--if he or anyone else thinks it has not, then the course would be AfD. (At least I think I have it straight) The reason not to go to AfD directly, as I see it, is to 1/give time and 2/given the author a chance to decide that the article wasn't a good idea after all and let the prod expire--that happens quite often and solves everything with minimal fuss.  DGG 07:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but sometimes article creators think they aren't supposed to remove prod tags and use hangon instead when speedy was never applied in the first place.  Usually I would just notify that editor that they should actually remove the prod tag. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Personally, I would wait for the user to actually remove the prod tag, not take the hangon tag as a form of contesting.  In some cases, I've found that new users are willing for articles to be deleted if they don't fit Wikipedia policies, and just want to say something in defense without going to the level of disputing deletion.  Mangojuicetalk 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does {{tl|hangon}} count as contesting a deletion? 

message: Is this contesting a prod? I think so, but the anon who PRODed the article thinks otherwise since PRODing isn't vandalism. Od Mishehu 10:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about this, which claims to have a better tag? Od Mishehu 10:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline says that Editors removing the tag should explain also in the edit summary or elsehere. Both above mentioned removals have been reverted, maybe because the edit summaries were misleading or not clear enough. At this point, I would see this still as a discussion between the involved parties whether the removal of the tag was based on a misunderstanding or actually implies a contestion. Furthermore, you could look at the article itself and see whether you yourself see a reason to contest the deletion or would want to bring this to AfD either endorsing deletion or simply for wider discussion. --Tikiwont 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Let me just add that the reinserted PROD on Jenaveve Jolie was contested once again together with a number of related ones. This lead to a lot of discussion on the respective user talk pages and at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28pornographic_actors%29#Adhering_to_standards. In the second case, I contested the proposed deletion myself. --Tikiwont 10:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: there's no point in arguing whether something amounts to a protest. A removal of a tag is a protest, and even if unexplained, the proper course to follow if one continues to disagree is Afd. Of course, removing without explanation is not very sensible, since one is more likely to carry the point if one explains. But rather than put tags on or off, discuss it properly where things should be discussed if discussion on the talk page fails,, at afd.  07:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion needed about something 

message: I have a new proposal for the proposed deletion system. I propose that templates be added to the prod system because many are better off at PROD than TfD since what happens is that TfD may get rather backlogged with foreign language templates (today's log, for example) which will eventually result in 
"Delete per nom" comments 20 times... What do you think? --Evilclown93(talk) 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced this would be an improvement, the backlog at TfD is manageable and useful templates could get deleted. For exampe, I usually ensure the articles I'm editing are on my watchlist, but don't normally include all of the templates I use. Addhoc 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. There wouldn't be many templates in that category, and one or two admins could manage it easily. It's just a waste of time having a deletion debate over a foreign language template. Why I'm proposing to use the PROD system is because I'm think CSD wouldn't accept this. --Evilclown93(talk) 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we add a speedy delete criterion of foreign language templates? Addhoc 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe. But I thought that PROD still give some time to the creator (who usually doesn't respond, and TfD is a waste of process. Evilclown93(talk) 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: TFD already speeds through some cases, I don't think prod is the right venue for this, because you're either a) going to spend five days looking at the ugly/huge prod template on every page the template is used, or b) it will be recommended that we not transclude the prod template on every page it's used, and there will be accusations of sneaky deletion. -- nae'blis 15:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is there a <noinclude>, you know, but also an <includeonly>. GracenotesT § 14:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: This image was uploaded today and added to Apple Inc. advertising.  The image compares two images under copyright, one by Apple (top), one by Louis Psihoyos (bottom).  The image was added to illustrate the fact that Apple is being sued by Psihoyos for copyright infringement (see here).  The image was uploaded without a valid copyright tag, by an editor new to Wikipedia.  Given the litigious situation surrounding the images, is the seven day waiting period for deletion the minimum for what is pretty much a given copyright violation?  Justen 23:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright violation 

message: Hello, could someone please direct me to the part in the policy which states that AfD should be used instead of PROD, if the article has been around for a while or there have been several editors.  I couldn't find it, but I may not be looking at the right pages.  Thanks.  Jackaranga 12:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here? Sr13 is almost  Singularity 21:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I must be having a really hard job, I looked where you said but still can't see it.  What I wanted to see was the specific policy that says to use AfD instead of PROD on old articles or articles with several contributors.  If someone could copy paste it here and tell me which page it came from I would be very gratefull, sorry for being so thick, maybe it's a phrase I read but couldn't understand. Jackaranga 11:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If you think that an article is an uncontroversial candidate for deletion [use PROD]", otherwise use AfD. If deletion has already been contested, then it's not uncontroversial. Other than cases like this, there is no sure way to tell whether deletion will be controversial or not in general. Tizio 11:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: right, it's a matter of judgement--if there is something clearly unsuitable that doesn't fit within speedy, it may be worth trying q prod in the hope that it won't be defended--if a clear enough reason is given, about half the time people realise that the article won't make it, and then it saves a good deal of trouble all around. As long as you keep track to send it to afd if prod tags are removed without improvement, no harm is done by trying. But if it is obviously going to be controverted, then prod is just a waste of time and effort. I would never blame anyone from trying one not the other--just a question of efficiency.  DGG (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks, for the answers, I was asking because one lot of articles I had proded were deleted, and the other lot reviewed by a different admin were converted into AfDs, because he said several people had edited them.  But several people had edited the ones the first admin deleted on expired prod too so I was confused.  It seems some admins do different things, so I was wondering where the policy was that said precisely like after how many edits I should use AfD instead of Prod.  Jackaranga 21:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD or AFD ? 

message: I prodded this article, and the admin Xoloz who handled it sort of "pseudo-objected" - while the five days for prod contesting were up, he declined to delete the article, but did not start an AfD, and did not otherwise edit the article.  Therefore, I don't think the burden of proof to keep the article was met (either in principle or in timeframe), and the article should be deleted.  However, there isn't anything in the policy to handle this sort of occurrence.  What's the precedent? MSJapan 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When an admin declines to delete an article tagged with  but does not actually edit the article's content, it's usually because they feel a full discussion may be needed. Since, a  can be contested at any time and for any reason (or even for no reason at all), you can take the article to AfD if you still think it deserves to be deleted. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-contested prod on [[Alberta Cerebral Palsy Sports Association]] 

message: Is PRODSUM broken? The last entry is from August 20. 70.55.87.43 06:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:PRODSUM 

message: I think the prod policy needs tweaking. Far too often, I've prod'ed a new article that clearly shouldn't be in WP, but for which there is no speedy deletion criteria. Usually articles that cover clearly non-notable topics, fancruft, the like. The original author comes along and removes the prod, but leaves no edit summary and makes no improvements to the article. Now it has to go through the whole AfD procedure, which is a nuisance (editing three different pages). 
What about changing the prod policy such that the original author can not remove the prod? Or that prod-removals with no explanation, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, can be restored? eaolson 05:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think either of those are good ideas.  In the first instance, often the only person who will notice that a new article has been prodded will be the article's author.  If he/she wasn't allowed to remove the prod, it's extremely likely that the new article would get deleted, whether or not there was a case to be made against it.  As to the second, you're then getting into some dangerous territory about what constitutes an "explanation".  I think we need to accept the fact that a great many prod tags placed on articles will be deleted, even if the article in question deserves to be deleted.  AfDs are a little more work all around, but they're also a means by which consensus is established. Sarcasticidealist 10:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Part of how we got PROD at all was the agreement that it could be stopped if anyone disagreed.  The extra work of an AFD isn't all that great when the call is obvious.  GRBerry 13:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *The speedy deletion templates, arguably more draconian that the prod policy, state that they should not be removed by the original author. I just think it would be a good idea of the prod policy is in parallel with that. eaolson 23:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There parallel between CSD and prod that you suggest does not exist. Articles that get speedied get deleted because they satisfy some narrow and "objective" criteria. The creator of the article cannot make those criteria any more or less satisfied by the article by removing the tags; he can only obstruct the mechanism that calls the existing fact to the attention of an admin. A prod is entirely different - an article gets deleted through prod because nobody appears to want to keep them. If the creator of the article disagrees with deletion, it is manifestly untrue that "nobody wants to keep it", and therefore it simply is not a suitable candidate for delting through the prod process. –Henning Makholm 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Are there really a lot of cases where the originating author of an article would not want to keep it? Barring minor things like accidental duplicates, misspellings, etc. eaolson 22:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of autobiographical/vanity/promotional one-offs, where people create articles and then never bother maintaining them, and therefore don't notice that the article's been Prodded.  Besides that, we know that an article's author won't always remove a Prod notice, because plenty or articles get deleted as a result of the Prod process; this shows that the process is useful and there really are a lot of uncontroversial deletions.  For controversial deletions that don't fit the speedy criteria, there's AfD. Sarcasticidealist 22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy needs tweaking 

message: Should obvious and certifiable hoaxes, which are not covered under a speedy criterion, be prod tagged first, rather than tediously go through an AfD? I was wondering this, as I have seen a few hoaxes at WP:AFD, and wondered why they can't be speedied. AfDs, while they do get rid of particularly bad material, can stir up major controversy, harming reputations, starting flamewars, and leading some to oppose certain RfAs. Hoaxes, when outright disproven, don't cause as much controversy as other material on AfDs, so why take the risk? J-stan TalkContribs 02:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PROD can be tried on anything.  No reason not to try, no reason to require trying.  GRBerry 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, just wondering. J-stan TalkContribs 14:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If of case of prodding an obvious enough hoax you may want to consider to place a  tag instead of a standard prod notice. It alerts the creator to the content problem and the article tag already explains that they could remove the tag.--Tikiwont 07:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoaxes 

message: I added  tags to several related articles, then the edits were later reverted by the page's creator.  I left a message on the user's page that they cannot simply be removed without giving a reason why (on talk page or in edit summary).  Is it permissible to restore the templates in this circumstance? –Dream out loud (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A  tag can be removed by anyone, including the creator, with or without providing a reason and without any change to the article. Once removed, a prod tag should not be restored unless the removal is a case of blatant vandalism. If you still think the pages should be deleted, you may list the articles at WP:AFD (if the articles are sufficiently related, you might wish to consider a bundled nomination). Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The only time a PROD tag should be restored is if it is removed in obvious vandalism, such as a total page blanking (by other than the creator) or replacement with graffitti.  Otherwise, the prod removal is correct, restoring is wrong.  GRBerry 19:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes I have removed prod tags, and then been persuaded to replace them myself. Kappa 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing/restoring prod tags in articles 

message: It seems discourteous to mark an article for deletion, without also notifying the creator, and perhaps other editors who have contributed to it. Surely it would be relatively simple for the addition of a  to an article to automatically add  ~~~~ to the talk pages of relevant editors. IP editors cannot have a watchlist and many editors with user names don't understand how to set one up, so a message is a good backstop. (My angle on this: I've proposed articles for deletion without seeing the bit about the Author(s) notification template.) Nunquam Dormio 08:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not relatively simple.  It would require coding from the developers, which just isn't going to happen.  If you, as an editor, wish to write and run some java code to do it for your own nominations, feel free.  In trying to do so, you'll discover just how non simple it is.  GRBerry 12:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't this sort of thing be done by a bot (see WP:BOTREQ)?? --ais523 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, a bot is the sort of thing I envisage. See Wikipedia:Bot requests#AfD notification bot and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Notification as part of deletion process for some similar previous discussion on this topic. Nunquam Dormio 12:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: - Good point.  It was mentioned already, but I have added more emphasis in the policy. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatically notifying creator / other editors 

message: "Make a request at deletion review. Any administrator can undelete upon a reasonable request." - as an admin I could undelete a PROD myself as a way of contesting it (I actually just want to redirect the article and merge to a suitable location), but should I do this myself or make a request? Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, that would be a valid use of admin powers and would count as a contesting of a prod, especially given the mentioned circumstance.  youngamerican (wtf?) 15:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to "go through the motions" when there is a zero percent chance of something different happening.  Go ahead and undelete them.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins undeleting PRODs 

message: This situation came up recently (both A and B are Admins) ... Person A finds an article with a Notability-based Speedy Tag and decides it should go to PROD instead based on an assertion of notability and tags it, removing the Speedy tag ... Person B Speedy Deletes the article on the basis of no notability ... Person A objects and restores article back into the PROD workstream.  Put another way
#Article Created
#Article PRODDED
#Article Speedy Deleted
#Article Restored
Is it appropriate for the article to be restored into the PROD workstream if the Speedy Deletion criterion was believed to be incorrectly applied?  In other words, if "there is a doubt" (Speedy assumes there is no doubt).  This objection to Speedy says nothing about rules-adherence or knowledge of policy, but rather is a judgment call. 
I and the other Admin resolved this by agreeing to disagree and let the article stay deleted in the end, but I did want to bring up the matter for clarification of the statement in the "How it works" section that indicates articles that are inappropriate for PROD include those that "Have previously been undeleted".  It would seem that the only alternative outcomes here are either a) leave the article deleted or b) take the article to AFD.  In the specific case I was involved in, AFD wouldn't be good - I merely "had a doubt" about whether or not WP:CSD#A7 was applicable.
At the risk of stepping into a pile of creep, I would in fact suggest that there be a sole exception to the "have previously been undeleted" clause - "have previously been undeleted, unless all previous deletions have been Speedy Deletions".
Thoughts?  --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the other admin involved, I support Ceyockey's request for comment so the issue is clarified. Best,--Alabamaboy (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding applicability to undeleted content 

message: Is there a reason we limit this to articles? The nature of prod is that it's pretty hard to make a controversial deletion with it - why not use it to wipe orphaned templates and the like as well? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I unprodded Jahar Dasgupta, Bengali artist, a couple of months back, and put it on watch, because the rationale given was "non-notable scientist" - which just wasn't applicable. Now it's been prodded again with the rationale: "Non notable artist, vanity page". My understanding is that reprodding unprodded articles is not quite the done thing, but is there a point of procedural principle here or can it safely be ignored? I really have no opinion as to his notability as an artist, I just wasn't going to let an artist be deleted for not being a notable scientist. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reprodding unprodded article