Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

message: The redirect Wikipedia:CONTEST has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 15:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Contest and WP:CONTESTED have been bundled. Jay 💬 15:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Wikipedia:CONTEST]] listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I have been interpreting for a bit WP:PRODNOM Rule 3's statement of  to mean that pages that were at AfD at any point, even if their AfD was closed as delete and the page recreated, that PROD cannot be used. This is to some extent borne out by placing those articles in :Category:Proposed deletions needing attention under the D sort key indicating that . So I guess am I correct in interpreting that PROD cannot be used even for pages that were deleted at AfD, or am I misintepreting this rule? TartarTorte 17:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. PROD doesn't apply for previously deleted articles. If you suspect that the page is the same as the deleted version, then you can tag it with  and then take it back to AFD if an admin declines the G4. Iffy★Chat -- 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

text: A problematic situation occurs when a present page appears to be for a topic other than a previously deleted instance.This appears to be the situation with the page currently in the category: without being able to see the prior article, from the AfD discussion it seems to have concerned a BJP party official, whereas the present article describes a literary figure active 30+ years ago. AllyD (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PROD applies to subjects, not titles, that have not been nominated for deletion (via WP:PROD or WP:AFD) before. If there is any doubt then simply start an AfD discussion. That is never wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

text: I wonder whether it could be useful to enable additional :Template:Proposed deletion parameters, to enhance the information and display? In this situation, either the proposer or a subsequent editor could add a comment that their check indicates that a previous AfD was for a similarly named but distinct subject, resulting in a less "shouty" red message in the Prod box when such a parameter is present. It might also be tidier for Prod2 to be bound to the Prod as an additional parameter? AllyD (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does [[WP:PRODNOM]] Rule 3 apply to pages who were deleted at AfD? 

message: Is there an easy way to check for old PRODs before proposing a page? If so, it might be nice to list that at the Before section. — HTGS (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the categorisation.  Is the talk page in :Category:Past proposed deletion candidates? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That category catches only those whose Talk page carries an Old Prod Full template, which has been added more systematically only recently: for example, IvsEdits is omitted. And, by extension, wouldn't catch the second instance of a deleted article. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

text: If it doesn't have an  tag on the talk page, the only way to see if it was previously PROD'd is to review the article history.  ~ GB fan 12:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article's history is so long that checking it is a problem then the article probably isn't suitable for PROD anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checking for previous PRODs