Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 1

message: *I think this is a possibly good idea. I would favor this proposal, and I would be willing to watch the log files. However I think there needs to be some showing of consensus behind this procedure before it goes live. if there is none I will undelete any page deleted via this process as an out-of-process deletion, and brign the matter to WP:DRV as an unsantioned speedy delete. DES (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: * I expect that some experienced SEO people might wise up, and will make it a habit to check back 6 hours later to remove the template (and will do so without giving any explanation why their article might not fit the deletion criteria).  But this proposal would still greatly lessen the burden on AfD.            Regarding Step #2 (appending the reason and article to the relevant deletion log page), it would be even easier if that could be automated somehow.  I could (and probably will) write a toolserver page to track new additions to :Category:Proposed deletion, that extracts the reason from the original page.  But the toolserver isn't always up, and one of the monobook.js people could probably write an on-wiki version too (though a js on-wiki version wouldn't automatically remove items from the list).  --Interiot 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the log page 

message: Overall, I think the policy is good.  However, I would recommend re-examining the wording of the template, keeping in mind that someone might read it who was not an experienced editor.  The concept of "templates" is not immediately obvious to a new user, so telling someone "remove this template if you object" might be unfathomable.  I would recommend adding wording like, "or add your objection on the <link>Discussion page", to make it easier for a new user or casual browser to express their concern.  Elonka 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template wording 

message: What stops this scenario:
*I tag article A with prod
*The creator removes prod, but the article really is trash.
*The admin going through the log sees that the template has been removed and the article isn't deleted (I suppose at this point it would be the admin's responsiblity to AfD, but that isn't mentioned in the proposal)
*I don't know the article wasn't deleted, so the trash remains.
That's a problem. No? (besides that I like the way this system works) Broken S 22:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like but... 

message: To paraphrase something I mentioned on the wikipedia-en list: There are three reasons for deleting:
;Bad topic: The topic is simply inappropriate for Wikipedia and nothing could possibly be done to the article to fix it. Examples: Non-notable people or groups, non-notable crackpot theories. Solution: Remove article from Wikipedia.
;Excessive prominence: The topic belongs somewhere on Wikipedia, but not as its own article. Examples: Less well-known songs of notable groups, minor characters of fictional series. Solutions: Merge content back to main article.
;Bad content: Topic deserves its own article but this article is crap. Examples: Copyright vio, truly awful writing, substub, dictionary def. Solutions: Rewrite, trim back to stub, remove totally (if no one volunteers to rewrite)
So, which of these categories is this proposal intended to deal with? Is there any guarantee that excessively prominent articles will not be removed (rather than merged, as would be appropriate)? If the article is being nominated under the first category, appeals for rewriting are pointless. If the article is being nominated under the third category, deleting it may be a worse idea than trimming back to a stub.
I suggest that the nomination process should explicitly state which category of deletion is required, and possibly use different templates for each. Comments welcome. Stevage 00:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excessive prominence and bad content can be dealt with by editing, without any need to vote. Andjam 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *This is not a vote, and neither is AFD. Radiant_>|< 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok ok, it's a discussion, not a vote, but what I mean is that AfD and PROD are bureaucratic measures, so editing is preferable to AfD or PROD. Andjam 01:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "delete" mean? 

message: I thought as an inclusionist I would hate this idea, but the proposal appears to be quite well thought-out, the FAQ above addresses every question I could think of, and well, you've done your homework. Perhaps my only objection is that, if this is used as a "gate" to decrease the number of articles hitting AfD, then the total time required to delete an article that is not a clear delete will go up (5 days on PropDel, 7 days on AfD). It could help to have an "emergency deletion process" for serious copyright issues, content actively receiving negative PR, and so on. Normally we'd just blank such pages while the deletion process goes on, but even blanking might not suffice if a permalink is made public (not that I'm aware of this ever happening). Deco 08:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that some large percentage (>50% perhaps) of PROD that move on to AFD would so in the first ~12 hours, due to attentive authors or patrollers.  Also, the goal really isn't to delete articles in a shorter amount of time, instead the point is to let patrollers be more efficient in their work, to not have to investigate an article 6 times over when it's more or less an obvious delete. --Interiot 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea 

message: Here's my suggested revision of this paragraph:
Wikipedia isn't about process. This page deletes articles if nobody objects to the deletion. As such, it will not delete worthwhile articles, unless no one is willing to go to the trouble of ensuring that a nominated article is worthwhile.  If you see an article listed here, you must read it in its entirety, judge it on its merits, and ensure that it either does or does not violate Wikipedia policies; otherwise, the process can fail, and worthwhile articles can be deleted by negligence.
For example, if a perfect 60 kB article from a specialized, highly technical field is referred for deletion on the grounds of verifiability and incorrect factual content, an editor with competence to review the entire article and verify every fact in it MUST review the article and vote to keep it, within 5 days.
This editor is expected to materialize out of thin air.  Other editors, who do not have the expertise necessary to judge such an article, must in good faith abstain from voting; otherwise they will be casting Delete or Keep votes without a basis of competence to do so.  They might as well be flipping a coin.
If the editor does not materialize out of thin air, the article is deleted.  Oh well, tough tiddy.  Maybe someone will come along and replace it someday - it's a wiki, after all! -Ikkyu2 10:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Em, 'fuck process'? --Doc ask? 11:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh, I'd be happy to discuss any aspect of process. But Ikkyt is just repeating himself from the above couple of sections, and the flaws in his reasoning are already pointed out there. Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it right. Radiant_>|< 11:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If nothing else, as noted by Interiot, the closing admin would probably say, 'hey, this is a good article', and not delete it. Deco 10:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it out of process to use PROD to delete articles? 

message: Can we get this started already?  I've just run across a unsourced biographical substub that seems tailor-made for running through the "proposed deletion" process.  It makes a plausable claim of notability (so it can't be speedy-deleted), but gets zero non-Wikipedia Google hits, so I can't verify the guy's existance, much less the claim.  I'd really rather not go through the effort of a full VfD on something that's a slam-dunk deletion. --Carnildo 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stay your hand, my friend. We start next Sunday :) - Haukur 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get this started? 

message: Maybe I'm missing it somewhere, but can proposed deletion be used for redirects? Deli nk 16:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: I support this proposal. --Improv 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds good 

message: I see that the proposal has been changed to remove the on-wiki log. I repeat that I very strongly object to this. Indeed I object to the proposal running without on-wiki logs. I don't feel that any of the ressons why such logs would be 1) highly desireable and 2) not overly burdensome to create were really addressed above. Please, please reconsider this choice. DES (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that would not be ideal IMO, It would be sufficent for me not to object strongly. i want 1) the ability to see the history of changes to the log, and ideally who made them (I don't get the last with the copied log, but I'll live with that) and to watchlist the log to note changes (again thsi is less useful with teh copied log than with a one-at-a-time updated log, but I can live with that). The category based version would be enough for the test, at least, IMO DES (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see a copy of the log on-wiki also, for reference purposes, but I wouldn't mind a delay in posting it. On the other hand, I like the idea of keeping the "live" log automatic, and would like to see this page eventually moved to an official URL. Wiki just isn't suitable for everything, and we too often stretch it to fit purposes it does not suit. Deco 02:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How long a "delay" do you consiser OK? I have not problem with 10 minutes or so, and not much with a once-an-hour update. Once a day or once a week is another mattter, IMO. DES (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with once a day, but in the spirit of compromise an hour sounds good, if the script's originator is comfortable with that. Deco 02:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crypticbot's now dumping a copy of the toolserver output to User:Crypticbot/Proposed deletion at 45 minutes after the hour.  It should be reasonably resilient to formatting changes, but let me know if you notice it breaking. —Cryptic (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I at least will find that quite helpful. DES (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logs again 

message: I'm generally in favor of this, but I have a concern about good-faith prods. If/as this becomes more popular, articles that fall within its scope are likely to receive prods, have them removed by boosters, and then be prodded again by someone on RC patrol or other well-meaning folks. Yes, they should check the history before prodding, but I can forsee bad feelings over this. Perhaps a process requiring a note on the talk page similar to  when it gets removed, even though that adds another step? Another option is an HTML comment on the article page when the prod is removed, but that's a rather non-wiki way of doing things, and not exactly intuitive to boot. The rest of this process looks good, although I agree with DES about the on-wiki log, if it's possible later. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *We don't want an absolute ban on re-proding though - a measure of common sense. If a piece of obvious near-nonsense gets tagged and the tag immedately removed, but no-one sends it to afd, and then much later (even weeks) somone re-taggs it, and it sails through prod, it would be crazy for the admin to send it to afd on a technicality. --Doc ask? 16:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: **Yeah, something like not being able to re-prod it without a) significant changes to the article or b) a certain period of time passing - a week, since that's longer than the AfD would take? Ideally even a second prod should probably take it to AfD unless the first one was removed in bad faith (page blanking by vandal is the only thing that comes to mind, or the proverbial bot-making-a-WP:POINT). -- nae'blis (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  repeated prods 

message: It's February 4th according to UTC. Am I to assume that the proposed deletion era has begun? — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've alredy tagged soem pages. DES (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This doesn't work, as a test I nominated two articles from the shortpages list, Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Albania and Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Algeria which I presumed would not be controversial deletions because they had zero content and were superceded by other pages, but this was kicked back for not being in the proper namespace.  And guess what? I'm not going to play this game.  Ruby 21:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Deletion Has Begun 

message: It's unclear if this was the intent of how this is supposed to work, but I removed the prod template from List of notable Veterans of other conflicts and moved  it to AfD.  While I think the article should be deleted, I didn't think it was so totally without merit that getting voted down in AfD was a fore-gone conclusion.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well...the idea is that if anyone *actually disagrees* then, and only then, do they move it to AFD. Proposed Deletion is like, "if there are no objections, delete", and if anyone has an objection, it goes to a full discussion on AfD. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 02:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That means you have to FIND such a person... removing and AfDing just means you BELIEVE such a person almost certainly exists. I think the latter may be safer. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you don't. You just sit and wait for them to come along, ideally. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rm prod, add afd??? 

message: I've removed the statement, Please don't remove "prod" tags because you think other people might disagree with them. Feel free to remove them if you disagree with them, though.  As far as I can tell, this was never part of the policy until I raised the issue here as a question.  I don't believe there is any consensus that such a statement should be part of the policy.  I think it's a perfectly legitimate thing to say, I, myself, think the article should go, but I can certainly see why other people might not agree, and try to engage a larger collection of people to make the decision.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy creep

message: If this thing really gets off to a good start, you'll end up seeing over a hundred articles a day added to the category. After that, anyone who's interested in saving good articles from deletion will have to look at every one of them to see if there's any merit. However, there's no way to actually make a comment in the effect of "I don't think it has any redeeming qualities" and instead everyone else will have to check through the exact same nominations, since there's no way to tell that someone else has actually went through the trouble. In the end, you'll have a ton of people having to wade through all the articles. I just don't see how it can work in practice. - Bobet 12:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is a way to make a comment. Just go to the article's talk page and say "I've checked this and it really doesn't seem to have merit". 12:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So instead of looking at every discussion on an afd page, you'll have to go through every talk page? How is that an improvement? It will end up just the same, except the discussion will be separated into hundreds of different pages. - Bobet 12:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *The difference is that if someone does think the article has redeeming qualities, it is unlisted. People can tell a lot from the article titles, and summaries given on the prod list. It's simply not true that everybody has to wade through all the articles (nor, in fact, do people do that on AFD). >Radiant< 12:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if someone thinks there are redeeming qualities, the article is unlisted and after that probably goes to afd anyway (since the person who originally tagged it will probably still contest that it should be deleted). I'm talking about things that really are obvious deletions. In afd you wouldn't have to wade through all the articles, since it's easy to see when people have commented on them (on the afd page or on User:Dragons flight/AFD summary/Few votes) but in here, how do you easily tell that someone actually agrees with the nominator (or indeed, has even looked at the article)? - Bobet 12:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't. The only safeguard is that the nominator shouldn't perform the actual deletion so you need at least two people to agree. But AfD already has a lot of pointless duplication of work (pile-ons). - Haukur 14:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If they're speedies, speedy them. Other than that, a possibility that comes to mind is creating a "prod-2" tag, that indicates that somebody has agreed with the request to delete, but is otherwise identical. The toolserver log could add a check mark to all those articles, and of course people are still free to "veto" them. But I'm not sure if that's worth the trouble. >Radiant< 14:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't think it is worth the trouble of a  tag. If it's not going to be redeemable, it should be fairly obvious from a cursory glance. People "wade through" a ton of articles all the time on RC/new articles patrol, and if they're speediable or proposable, they should be fairly quick. The minute someone disagrees with the prod, it's removed from the list and goes to AfD (or is just removed in the case of bad-faith noms) and it failsafes out of this system. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's not the issue discussed here. The point is that if something is not redeemable, there's no way to tell people that you agree with the nomination, or show that someone has gone through the trouble and looked through any nominated article. When there eventually are hundreds of articles on the list, there will be bound to be some that could be improved, but won't since they'll get lost among the mass of really worthless articles. The only way to currently stop that is by each individual involved with this to look through every nominated article, which just leads to a ton of redundant work being done. - Bobet 13:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Once it's up and running fully, there won't be as much need for people to be watching a central list, because there will be more eyeballs on the project as a whole. This entire encyclopedia is predicated on the concept that you do what you know, and what you're interested in, rather than being assigned tasks like a 9-5 job, IMO. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's no way to see if someone has already looked through the nomination 

message: This is off to an excellent start.  Most of the articles listed are appropriate, and the procedure of cleaning up and removing the tag is simple and intuitive.  No more pointless, acrimonuous battles over stuff that shouldn't have been listed for deletion in the first place.  Just add a few references, or turn it into a redirect, and off you go! --Tony Sidaway 13:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very good start 

message: I'm wondering whether it is possible to keep a list of articles (say in the last 48 hours) where the prod tag has been removed. My one small worry with this system is that an NP partoler spots a POS article and tags it, and then the author later untags it. If the patroler hasn't watched it, or has gone off, it may not get AfD'd. If we had a log of de-tagged articles, someone else can check through it and send any obvious junk to AfD. --Doc ask? 15:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling on this is that if it doesn't eventually get AfD'd, it probably didn't need to be AfD'd. If an article is potentially defamatory, a copyright infringement, an attack, or otherwise damaging, it should be removed from the wiki as soon as possible, but this isn't the mechanismto use for that. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed one from Emma Shea because it struck me as a notable topic... but then I did some digging and couldn't find a single reference! So I put the article up for AfD. In hindsight I should have dug first before removing, but based on how the process works, I couldn't just put the prod tag back... I've also been putting small plugs in various AfD's that maybe that particular AfD could have been PRODded but I think putting info in the main WP:AfD, as was also done (by Radiant?) is probably as effective or more (Not all voters review it but presumably people about to AfD something might...) ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think there's a problem with reverting yourself.  Likewise, if someone entirely blanks an article that happens to have a prod tag stuck to it, I plan to rollback just like with any other article blanking. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought the policy was that if it was removed for any reason that was it, doesn't count. I guess it would be commonsensical that the policy doesn't apply to self removal-reinsertion (er, sorry for that image there, folks). ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm assuming the hinted problem here is with someone who just started an article about eg. his personal nn website and checks through his article every day, removing the prod tag in the process. In that case, every objective person would think the article isn't useful, but it would still have to end up on afd because one person has a vested interest in keeping it. New pages patrollers necessarily won't add everything they prodded to their watchlists, which might lead to articles generally considered worthless getting kept. - Bobet 13:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When PROD tag is removed 

message: I put the template on an article.  The original author comes along and deletes it.  What is my recourse?
And how are we supposed to find what articles have the template on them?  Click on "what links here"?  How long is this "discussion" supposed to last?  Where do we discuss the merits of the template being added to an article?  On the article's talk page?  So we have hundreds of places to look instead of one central place?  Gee, what an improvemen.   User:Zoe|(talk) 19:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these questions are answered at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The log is on the toolserver (http://tools.wikimedia.de/), which services (nearly) all of the Wikimedia servers, not just de.  --Interiot 19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If the author removes the template, it can be sent to AfD then, right? Deco 23:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can, or you can talk with the person who removed the template and ask them if they agree the template can be put back. You could even use that as an alternate to AFD, to a degree... (but you need to be good at negotiating and talking with people! Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) Kim Bruning 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Answering Zoe's questions, via quotes from the project page:
#I put the template on an article.  The original author comes along and deletes it.  What is my recourse?
#:"If someone removes Template:Prod from an article for whatever reason, don't place it back. ... If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on AfD." (I had to add that last sentence; thanks for asking the question.)
#And how are we supposed to find what articles have the template on them?
#:"A log of all articles proposed for deletion is automatically generated, and can be found HERE.
#:There is also a category: :Category:Proposed deletion
#Click on "what links here"?
#:See previous answer.
#How long is this "discussion" supposed to last?
#:I assume you mean the "discussion" of wheather the page should be deleted, in which case: "The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days." should answer that.  If you meant another discussion, please clarify.
#Where do we discuss the merits of the template being added to an article?
#:See section How to discuss if an article should be deleted; basically, either list it on AfD or comment on the talk page.  In any case, remove the prod tag as this process is not for deletions that someone wants to discuss.  I had to add this section also; thanks again for your questions.
#On the article's talk page?
#:See previous answer.
#So we have hundreds of places to look instead of one central place?
#:I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here, so I'm not sure how to answer.  "one central place" for what, exactly?
#And when does deletion take place?
#:See question #4, above.
#Who deletes?
#:Like all other deletion processes, "Closing guideline for administrators".  I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, here.
#How long is the tag supposed to stay on an article?
#:See question #4, above.
Hope this is helpful to you; it certainly improved the project page, as there were two questions you asked that had not been clearly specified.  Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What an invitation to edit wars 

message: The Prod people kicked back a nomination for a run-of-the-mill undergrad student from someone kind enough to take the time to help clean up WP from all this mounting crud just because the asteroid people requested the article?  So now we throw out all the accumilated experience of those users who frequently participate in AfD and create another layer of management to approve or disapprove their requests.  Ruby 21:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the article shouldn't be deleted, just remove the  template.  Simple as that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to step on the prodpeople's authority (there's a new sheriff in town I guess).  But so far we have have nothing but delete votes on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tzveta_Dmitrieva_Pokrovska as I predicted. Ruby 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See above. Ruby 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I withdraw my complaint, BrokenSegue; from reading the histories I thought you were compelled to AfD it after getting your Prod request shot down, and that set me out of orbit.  There have been some subsequent comments that have ruint the whole project for me, however.  Ruby 16:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a crock 

message: Does anyone see an immediate reason to think the deletions done by this method will be any less reasonable than those done at Afd?  I don't see how this can really introduce any problems that we don't already have, and there's always deletion review.  Instead of assuming problems and trying to stop this, why not just keep a close eye on it so that any problems that actually arise can be dealt with?  Isn't this what people are already doing?   I don't see a reason to get excited.  Friday (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been well thought through. So many articles are being tagged with this - many of which are obvious speedy candidates - that it's virtually impossible to give them any sort of review unless a) they're already on your watchlist, or b) you spend all your time on the encyclopedia monitoring this category, which IMHO is not helpful. It's already not working - it may be able to in not-too-distant future, but it would vastly help if people thought this through then acted. Ambi 02:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So many articles are being tagged with AFD - many of which are obvious speedy candidates - that it's virtually impossible to give them any sort of review unless a) they're already on your watchlist, or b) you spend all your time on the encyclopedia monitoring AFD, which IMHO is not helpful. It's already not working - it may be able to in not-too-distant future, but it would vastly help if people thought this through then acted. — Phil Welch 02:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so funny. Please actually contribute to the discussion or go away. Ambi 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was contributing. Please learn to understand reductio ad absurdum arguments or go away. — Phil Welch 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD defaults to keeping an article.  You don't have to monitor it; if no one participates thoughtfully in the discussion, the article is kept.  In this it differs from PROD, which requires no thoughtful discussion before deleting an article.  Can you understand why I don't think your reductio with respect to AfD is analogous to Ambi's point with regard to PROD? Ikkyu2 02:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that actually true, though?  In principle an article could be deleted through AfD with only the nominator's vote and the closing admin's decision—just like PROD. No discussion required, and the nominator's explanation can be quite concise.  Practically, this happens very seldom, and PRODworthy articles from AfD typically get a couple of desultory Delete per nominator votes because a) AfD has more traffic right now, and b) we don't want a single troll to be able to push an obviously deletable article into no-consensus territory.  There are already several very dedicated editors watching the PROD category, and I expect that there will be even more eyes in the future.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Most articles being tagged are arguably not obvious speedy candidates.  CSD rules are worded very narrowly, and proposals that attempt to use wording that can be interpretted more liberally have not gained wide support.  --Interiot 03:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the panic? 

message: I apologize if this has been answered, so please feel free to move this question to the topmost FAQ by Radiant: If I see a prod tag and found even more reasons to delete, can I add these reasons?  Where? --Perfecto  02:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Does that mean  should never be subst'd? —rodii 03:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It currently confuses my script, so preferably people don't subst it.  I might be able to add more logic to my script, but as far as I know, there's no benefit or use for substing .  --Interiot 03:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I add fuel to the fire? How? 

message: Should we sign our reason for deletion with our username? Some people are doing that. BrokenSegue 02:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "No signature necessary."  But I can't particularly see that it hurts. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What people are doing in explaining their reasoning is really the kind of comment that traditionally goes on the talk page.  I suppose if someone wants to make a long statement, they should do so on the talk page and sign it.  If the reason is short, it could go in the template and not be signed. Friday (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We wouldn't normally sign an AfD template on the article page. As a rule, I don't think there should be user sigs on article pages at all. —Whouk (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The history shows who tagged. DES (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be useful if the user who tagged showed up in the logs, I think.  I, for one, like to check up on progress of articles I've nominated for deletion, and being able to search the log for my username would be the easiest way of finding them. JulesH 21:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign? 

message: Nevermind. I'm merely paranoid today. --Perfecto  05:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taggers, I suggest you randomise your reasons... 

message: The list of PRODs needs to be more prominent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxxxxxxxxx (talk • contribs) 
*It's right at the top of the page, and on the template. >Radiant< 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visibility 

message: Can someone try this rephrase on for size?
This article is proposed for deletion for the following concern:
:I found the books cited in the Reference section in the library and reviewed them: they validate nothing in the article.  This is likely a hoax.
If you disagree, please [ edit this page] and remove this message.  Please consider addressing this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the article.
The article may be deleted if this message has stayed for five days. For more information, read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. (log)
Thanks. --Perfecto  05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You link to WP:PROD twice; under "deleted" and directly.  You probably want to delink "deleted".  I prefer the emphasis on improving the article, but I'd be happy with the following rephrasing of that sentence: If you disagree with this concern, or you can address it by ... please edit this page and remove this message."(with the ... being the same list as above). JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean.  I did, and as a bonus, saved two more words.  You probably realise my rephrase reflects the "How to prevent an article from being deleted" section of the main page, that is, improving the article is optional.  I also saved 14 words.  --Perfecto  14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a good idea. The focus should be on improving the article. Perfecto's version lies the focus on removing the template. The major problem with AFD is that it focuses people on debate rather than article improvement. >Radiant< 23:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmph.  Then (1) change the "How to prevent an article from being deleted" instructions on the main page, since all my version does is reflect what it says. (2) I could go tonight and tag every {unreferenced} article and every article without reliable sources I see.  Let's see how folks here will like the huge research assignments that's due in five days.  :P (3) Why people are nervous to remove the tag now makes sense to me.  --Perfecto  02:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Radiant, can you reply? --Perfecto  13:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rephrase 

message: Does tagging an article for proposed deletion protect it from speedy deletion? If speedy deletion is too open to abuse/causing hard feelings then I can understand that. On the other hand, I'd hope that deleting/undeleting speedily deleted articles is No Big Deal.... --The Cunctator 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a view that one major problem with speedy deletion is WP:BITE.  Creating an article about yourself is one of the more common newbie errors, I usually userfy them and leave an explanatory note rather than deleting them straight from :CAT:CSD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which, if I may, I disagree.  Wikipedia is not a collection of user autobios or self-written company profiles -- Wikipedia is not geocities or blogger.  In my experience, new accounts who begin with autobios contribute nothing else, and sometimes, never even come back.  JzG, you probably see me tag new-user autobios {nn-bio}+{nothanks-vanity} all the time.  I expect {nt-v} takes away the bite. --Perfecto  15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As a frequent newpages patroller, my method is to userfy obvious non-notable autobios, since I figure they just intended to create a userpage anyway.  I add  to the userpage and currently a note on the talk page explaining what I did.  Yeah to me just deleting them outright seems too close to WP:BITE.  --W.marsh 15:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Some autobios disclose far too much personal information though (eg. birth date, birth place, names of their children), and sound as if they're writing their own eulogy.  I don't know, there seems to be something of a standard way of doing user pages on the internet...  being less interested in disclosing personal information, and more interested in embellishing an online persona.  I honestly think that nn-bios that disclose too much information are probably not what someone wants on their user page if they become an active contributor (or even something they'd want in the page's history), so I prefer to delete those instead.  (I don't think this way about all nn-bios, just the ones that head in the direction of enumerating their children's names).  --Interiot 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To answer The Cunctator: No. Please tag articles for speedy wherever and whenever appropriate.  We want them gone.  Speedy tags are as reversible as the prod tag anyway. --Perfecto  15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have already speedy deleted at least one prodded article by nn-bio. Watch out for opportunities like this. Deco 20:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Delete policy? 

message: Right now the only ways to sort through the PROD'd pages are the 'what links here' on the template and the category. Neither of them have the date the page was tagged. There needs to be an easy way for people to check the articles being added (and an easy way to see what needs to be deleted). Is there any way to add the date as part of the listing in the category? -Ravedave 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: N/M I opened my damn eyes and looked at the 1st section (Deletion Log) on the article page. Sheesh - Ravedave 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date added 

message: Just as a general reminder, I realise there are a lot of articles to get through, but please remember to avoid abbreviations and jargon (without explanative links) in your prod reasons. These reasons are reviewed not only by experienced Wikipedians but also by the original contributor, who is often a clueless newbie. I know we'll keep doing this anyway, but just try to keep it in mind. :-) Deco 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that nominations like 'dicdef neologism' and 'vanispamcruft' are going to be absolutely baffling to new users and lead to confusion.  It would help if there were templates to make it easy to provide useful and well-referenced nominations every time, though I understand some people are strongly opposed to the idea.  Still, it's frustrating to ask editors to spend an extra minute or two on every single nomination when a template would work so well.  Some people do make an awful lot of nominations every day.  What I suggest is that each editor make their own unoffocial pretyped messages for common deletion reasons, and either store it in a text file or some other easilly accessable place. --W.marsh 05:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please be verbose 

message: Perhaps I've missed the answer to this somewhere, but how are articles marked with the Prod template deleted? Are they automatically deleted, or do we need to go through and manually delete those that have been around for five days? If the latter, is there a page that lists ripe Prod pages? Babajobu 09:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the page again. If this is not mentioned in big red letters, please correct.  It's manual. Has it been 5 days already? JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, it's mentioned under "Closing guidelines for administrators". No, it's not been five days yet. Babajobu 09:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How deleted? 

message: ...the person removing the prod tag lists a reason for doing so.  I keep getting prod tags dropped without comment which forces me into AfD.  Seems to me that that kind of defeats the purpose.  James084 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're entitled to do so. A lot of them are clueless newbies or just don't feel any need to justify their decision. Just take it to AfD - even if a good percentage of them end up on AfD, I think a lot of them will still make it through the 5 day period. Deco 00:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: My point being that this is a waste of time.  If the tag is going to be deleted without comment (without some guidance as to why the article needs to be kept) and it goes to AfD anyway, why not just start at AfD and eliminate this unnecessary step.  As for me, I'm not bothering with this any more.  I'll just put it on AfD and have a lively debate about it.  At least that way I know where I went wrong and why the article should be kept.  James084 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume when you list it on AfD you give a reason for it to be deleted? I don't get your complaint here. — Phil Welch 02:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: My complaint is actually on the opposite side of the equation.  In AfD if you vote to keep the article you usually provide an explanation.  In this process anyone can essentially vote keep without any comment.  This, of course, forces the issue into AfD.  As I said, this middle step is a complete waste of time.  James084 02:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a waste of time if someone removes the prod, but it saves time if no-one removes it. Zarquon 02:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. The idea is that enough are not kept that the additional time for the ones going to AfD is justified. If you expect it to be contested, feel free to send it straight to AfD instead. I raised this objection above somewhere. Deco 03:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the people James084 is complaining about is me. He "prodded" defeat in detail and I "de-prodded" it. Since I'm familiar with the term it was obvious to me that it shouldn't be deleted. I suppose it would have been better to have commented on the talk page explaining why It should be kept, but all I felt I had time for at that point was to simply to remove the tag. And frankly I was hoping that my removing the tag, might be sufficient for James to reconsider whether the topic deserved deletion. A simple Google search I think would convince most people that this is a legitimate term deserving of an article on Wikipedia. Paul August ☎ 03:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think giving a reason in the edit summary more informative than "de prod" might have helped in getting him to reconsider. Maybe not, but even if you don't think it's worth going to talk, the edit summary is there calling to you. No reason anywhere doesn't help change anyone's mind. —rodii 03:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Good point. My edit summary should have been more informative. I will be more conscientious in the future. This process is new and we are all learning. Paul August ☎ 05:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit summaries are not as sexy as talk pages, but I have come to esteem them highly. They seem like a really useful tool in this process especially. —rodii 13:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It only works when... 

message: (Disclaimer: Numbers don't add up quiiite right. As such, these should be treated as rough estimates of what are probably highly misleading statistics)
As when I took a sample (about when the two earliest proposed articles got deleted), roughly 883 articles have been prodded.
*Of those, 290 articles are still prodded (about a third).
*599 articles have been de-prodded. Of those:
** 227 have been speedied,
** 198 have been de-prodded without further action,
** 78 are on AfD,
** 73 have been made into redirects,
** 12 are copyvios, and
** 6 have been re-prodded.
The number of AfDs for the past three days (6th, 7th, 8th) has dropped to 130/day.
I have no idea what any of these numbers mean, but these are what the numbers look like after five days of nothing but proposals. Nifboy 07:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is surprisingly more well-balanced than I would have imagined. It's good to see we're all looking for opportunities to take other appropriate actions with these articles. Deco 08:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much for doing this!  What was the # of AfDs per day before, btw? JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Varies between 160-200, usually towards the higher end. Nifboy 16:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Does that 198 include articles which have been tidied up? I removed a few prods and improved the articles at the same time. —Whouk (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Nifboy 16:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random observations 

message: It looks to me like a lot of the entries in the PROD queue are about eg non-notable bios, which can be speedily deleted.  PROD should only be used where it isn't clear that a speedy delete would be more appropriate. — ciphergoth 08:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bio which is not notable is not automatically speediable, due to the subjective nature of such a judgement. To be speedy-deletable, it must itself fail to assert the notability of its subject. Something as simple as "John Dude is a guitar player known all over Hazard, Nebraska" could easily be construed as non-speediable. That said, I did find at least one speedy-deletable bio and deleted it. Deco 09:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the first statement, not the second.  When a landlord wants a delinquent tenant out in California, she posts a "3-day notice to pay rent or quit the premises" along with a "30 day notice to quit the premises."  Might as well just post the speedy template up along with the PROD template; that way, if speedy gets shot down, the PROD clock is already ticking. Ikkyu2 19:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So tag them as speedies or speedy them yourself. You don't even have to worry about closing an AfD discussion! — Phil Welch 20:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of PRODs should be speedys 

message: All these articles at 119 hours and I haven't seen one that I can delete yet. Are you guys just on top of them or are they being hidden for some reason? Deco 10:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deco, looked at the bottom of the list?  Best of the Dead and RedQuEEn! will be coming up any minute now...  In any case, we need help at CAT:CSD - it's up to about 90 articles.  Please take your deletion desires over there for a bit... JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to put the article that have been at  the longest on top, this way ensuring they are spotted first, since it is more important that they be dealt with before those that were more recently listed? Peyna 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how Recent Changes get listed on WP (I've got CryptoDerk's doing it the other way around like you suggest). Ruby 04:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the red articles? 

message: I don't want to encourage newbies to save their precious articles by immediately slamming them from prod to WP:AFD, but shouldn't there be a link in Template:Prod to AFD? I mean, if you're a serious user and you think the deletion should be debated, you'll want the link. Failing that, there should be a link off the auto-generated prod list, so the Prod Patrol can AFD articles. Alba 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be appropriate to strongly suggest to the person removing the prod tag to list the article on AfD instead; however, the problem is that probably most of the people that remove the prod tag don't think the article should be deleted and would see listing it on AfD as something they probably don't want to do.  While some of us might have a sense of duty to the person that originally listed the article for prod, to then go ahead and list it for AfD if we decide to remove the prod tag, I doubt most editors would do so.  Peyna 01:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a user makes an objection on the talk page it won't get prodded, I was saving a few articles this way earlier.  Ruby 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just have to note that this is not correct.  While it would be nice if any admin clearing out the PROD log made sure to read the talk pages, and remove the prod link for any pages that mention an objection, it is not required.  The way to record an objection is to remove the prod tag.  Anything else may be noticed by the closing admin, or another user, but it may not be.  I strongly encourage anyone who has conerns about the deletion of a PRODed article to remove the tag - that's the proper signal.  Leaving an objection on the talk page is certainly useful, but it's not a substitute for removing the tag. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to template: add AFD link 

message: I just removed the template from an article, Gary Scavone, which had already survived an AfD (I also expanded it).  Shouldn't there be a general policy against such articles being listed here?  These are only for articles that no one thinks are worth keeping, right?  Obviously, several people had already voted to keep that one.  I have a number of concerns about this idea (particularly that bios of academics and others in specialized fields will be more likely to be deleted), but a clear policy against listing AfD survivors would make me feel a little bit better about it.  Chick Bowen 07:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; if an article has gone through AfD, it should not be listed here; it might be good to add a link to the AfD page for the article, just to make it easy to check this... Feel free to add such a link.  Thanks for bringing this up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with this. The point of PROD is to streamline deletion of obvious deletion candidates, and one can safely say no article that we'd ever vote to keep is an obvious delete. Even if the article has changed significantly since the keep vote, the worst it deserves is reverting, not deletion. The only possible exception I can imagine is if for some reason our standards for deletion become much more aggressive in the future. Deco 08:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Already been through AFD? 

message: Just the pragmatic side of me wondering whether the entire system falls to bits dramatically if the Wikimedia toolserver goes down for any period of time (so we don't have the central records), which it has been known to do? enochlau (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backup system 

message: Would it possible to note on the main page that prod is not the appropriate tag for copyright violations?  We have  to deal with copyright problems, and while most of them probably are not contentious, they require more special attention than they may get being listed here. Peyna 15:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you went ahead and did this. Sounds good to me. Deco 18:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I figured it'd be more likely to get attention if I actually made the change than just posted a comment about here.  Looks like I was right. Peyna 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: I'm finding a lot of previously XD'd articles showing up on the prod list, any suggestion on how to handle them? Peyna 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's XD? Deco 20:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:XD. I'd say just handle them normally. Why not? BrokenSegue 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. None of the XD proposals had nearly the support behind them that this one does. Deco 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This sounds good to me; I would also apply it to other articles that have been substantially vandalized or otherwise had content removed since their last good state. Although people examining the merits of an article up for deletion really should always be checking out the history, in practice we're always in a hurry. Deco 20:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XD overlap 

message: If this shouldn't go here, then I'll delete it with an apology.  At any rate, I put up the template for a page to be deleted on 28 November 2006; it's now 5 December, well past the time during which the article should have been taken care of.  Is there something else that needs to be done?  Will nothing happen at all if an admin decides the article is not worth deleting? Magaroja 23:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's normally five days, but it can be longer if a backlog occurs. It depends upon how many articles there are & admins available time. If an admin disagrees with the nomination, they would remove the prod template. -- JLaTondre 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When do marked articles actually get deleted?