This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Currently, this policy has no section for BLPs. Seeing as how BLPs should get special thought and treatment at Wikipedia, I suggest creating a separate section for them. There's currently a sentence or two scattered around, but I think we ought to consolidate into a separate section.

Additionally, the BLP policy says the following: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines."

So, I suggest we include a similar statement here: "The burden of evidence rests with those who believe a BLP should be kept. Editors should be able to demonstrate that a BLP complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just those policies and guidelines specifically directed to BLPs, or should at least be able to demonstrate that the BLP could be edited so as to bring it into compliance. A BLP should only be kept if there is consensus that this burden has been met."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've recently learned that people have previously suggested at Wikipedia that BLPs have a "default to delete" policy instead of a "default to keep" policy when there is no clear consensus either way. The discussion occurred in April 2008 at the BLP talk page rather than here.[1][2]

This suggestion has won many endorsements, but not yet enough to be implemented. The main objection seems to have been that BLPs may be nominated for deletion due to other reasons than defamation, privacy violation, or undue weight. Sometimes the article subject might prefer that the article be kept. My response to that would be that it's still better not to include a BLP unless there's a consensus that it could meet all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As a compromise, I could see striking out "guidelines", and just insisting on potential compliance with "policies." Even if the subject wants to be in a dedicated article, the article may still adversely affect other living people who would not want the article to exist, and of course the subject may merely want the article to exist for selfish self-promotion reasons which do not justify it. Additionally, as everyone knows, many editors don't pay much attention to Wikipedia policies, and in fact are positively urged to ignore those policies on some occasions (see WP:IAR). The only way to make sure that Wikipolicies are respected with regard to BLPs is to require consensus that they are being respected.

Also, it's just fundamentally inconsistent and confusing to "default to keep" for a BLP if the actual edits to the article are "default to remove." And the latter is now the case, per WP:BLP. This inconsistency did not exist in April 2008 when this proposal was previously discussed.[3][4]

Full disclosure: I was recently involved in an AfD that didn't turn out as I would have liked.[5] But regardless of that, I think consensus should be required that a BLP follows all policies.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia doesn't need borderline BLPs, it doesn't need the controversy and the potential damage. Rarely (with BLPs) is it the case that information, if not recorded now, will be forever lost. If the person is really notable, a better article will be written after they die. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Noting Fabrictramp's oppose below... I felt is was assumed that certain conditions would be assumed, conditions such as: A valid nomination rationale was given; at least the closing admin agrees; the reason for "no consensus" are due to complex subtleties and interpretations. The sort of AfDs I see this applying to are cases where, if deleted, a current practive at DRV would fail to have it overturned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional support This should not apply to any BLP article's deletion discussion. Only when there reasoning for the deletion is BLP based. We should not for example default to delete because a BLP article was nominated due to being redundant with other content. If the arguments are based on BLP such as "Not a notable figure" or "lack of verifiable information" then yes I agree it should be default to deleted. I don't agree with "complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just those policies and guidelines specifically directed to BLPs", this special BLP exception should apply to BLP issues only and not have its scope expanded. It has been all too common a practice for people to take a rule meant for BLP and extending it into an unrelated debate, that needs to be discouraged. Chillum 13:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Chillum, there are several reasons why I think it would be unworkable to omit the condition that you mention: "complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just those policies and guidelines specifically directed to BLPs". Many Wikipedia policies such as NPOV and verifiability are blanket policies that are not specifically addressed to BLPs, and we don't want to omit such policies, do we? Also, there are definite advantages to a simple, bright-line rule, and if we get bogged down in a lot of extra conditions and permutations then it will be a much more difficult AFD policy to apply. I agree with you 100% that the default to delete should apply only to BLPs.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose. The burden of showing there's a valid reason for deletion should always be on the deleter. If the article has problems with defamation, unsourced negative content, or other editing issues, then edit it. And frankly, it's even more fundamentally inconsistent and confusing to "default to delete" for a BLP when nothing else defaults to delete.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Every edit to add content to a BLP is "default to delete", right? So if there's no consensus that anything whatsoever should be added to the article, then what's the point of keeping the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the only articles that would get deleted under this proposal that wouldn't be deleted currently are articles where none of the half-dozen people who cruise by the AfD can be bothered to write a decent stub from the sources they know are there. (If they were convinced sources weren't out there, then they would argue that, and the article would be deleted for failing WP:V or WP:N.) Again, that's and editing issue, not a deletion issue, and the time spent dealing with the deletion could easily have been spent editing.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What about an article like Levi Johnston? There was no consensus that the article satisfies the requirements of WP:Tabloid, and yet the article has been kept. This happens all the time at Wikipedia; there's no consensus that the BLP satisfies policies, and yet the article is kept anyway. This is a lousy way to deal with biographies of living persons, IMO, and it has very little to do with people cruising by the AfD and not being bothered to write a decent stub.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Gah, my browser crashed after I tried to save my reply. You might want to choose an example that you aren't involved in, especially one that didn't turn out the way you wanted. I really don't want to spend an hour reviewing the article and AfD (although I did spend a not-insignificant amount of time reviewing). Quite frankly, if WP:TABLOID is what you're hinging your complaint on, then you really need to show why you think the Chicago Tribune, CBS news, and CNN should get lumped in with People. (And you may want to read User_talk:Julian_Colton#Levi_Johnston.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

When a bunch of anonymous people like ourselves start messing around with the lives of real, non-anonymous people, then we should at least have consensus among ourselves that we're going by the rules, IMO. There are hundreds of reasons why hundreds of BLPs get twisted, and all I'm suggesting is a way to limit the damage. Thanks for that last link to Julian_Colton.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support per SmokeyJoe and the very well stated proposal. If more AFD voters actually cared about things other than notability, this might not be necessary, but too many times I've seen absolutely terrible articles be kept at AFD because the subject is borderline notable; for BLPs this is not acceptable. Mr.Z-man 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The standards for BLP are already very different: we very correctly require a higher level of reliability for the sourcing for contentious statements, especially negative ones. And it's only for BLP that ONEEVENT has any meaning, or DONOHARM. These are major restrictions, and BLP discussions are conducted here in terms of adherence to them. The question for a BLP AfD is whether it fails those stricter requirements. That;s enough. There are many reasons why we might not have consensus. any articles , BLPs included, close as noconsensus for reasons unrelated to the special problems of BLP. Some discussions are closed as no consensus because even after relisting not enough people are prepared to discuss them. That's no reason for removal. For other articles, we need consensus to remove according to their standards, for BLP according to the stricter BLP standards. There's already the necessary offset. DGG (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Qualified support - BLPs should default to merge, because with the sort of BLPs we're talking about, there is almost always an obvious merge target, or if not, a less obvious one can generally be found. Defaulting to merge means we don't prejudice a recreation (requiring DRV etc) if at some point a separate article is justified. Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting suggestion. Default to merge sounds like it might be very feasible. I don't think it's ever been suggested before.[6] That may require a separate new discussion at some point.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That's even worse, much worse. If there's problematic BLP content, merges are terrible. A pet peeve of mine, is that all failed poltical candidates for federal/provincial office in (at least) Canada are kept, no matter how bad the content is (except for blatant attacks), and sit there forever, never fixed. If someone warrants a bio, give them one. Otherwise, delete it. But don't relocate (merge) it. Relocation doesn't solve anything. --Rob (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Er I think you're missing the point. If there's consensus to delete bios that fail WP:POLITICIAN, fine. Where such consensus can't be found, but there is no consensus to keep, defaulting to merge would be better; in such cases merge candidates might be a list of some sort, or an article about a local party, and generally would involve much less extraneous detail than defaulting to keep and leaving the bio there. Rd232 ^talk 10:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Not so. The merged bio will typically keep the same level of detail. There's no minimum size for a standalone bio, which can be trimmed to a single sentence. The merge target is often a "dump site" that nobody edits, except to add more bios. A typical "List of Party X candidates in Election Y" article will have bios that include info about other elections, and info unrelated to any election. Merging also removes an article from appropriate BLP specific categories (I'm thinking mainly of maintenance categories). Leaving these no-consensus BLPs as a stand alone article is better. It would stand a better chance of eventually being fixed, or being renominated for deletion (as failure to fix BLPs is good cause for renomination). --Rob (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Isn't needed per DGG and Fabrictramp. In addition, the use of articles like Levi Johnston is particularly worrying as that's a clear and strong keep candidate IMO. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no need to conflate article content policies with article inclusion guidelines. Unnecessary and confusing. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As per the arguments above. It is far too easy on many AFDs for a few editors to argue an AFD to a no consensus. Considering there are some regular editors whose standard for where BLPs should be kept are much stricter than community consensus guideline (must be in a "paper encyclopedia" standard as against WP:N and WP:BIO) this would make it far too easy for such editors to no consensus the discussion in order to get them deleted. (And any admin who tried to ignore such arguments in favour of the guidelines would get absolutely pilloried.) Also the argument that this should be apply even to BLPs who want their article here because it affects other BLPs, could also apply to any article in which a BLP is mentioned, thus starting us down the road to default to delete for all (or virtually all) articles. Davewild (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As DGG said, the standards for BLP content are already much higher than for other articles.--Aervanath (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose A "burden of proof" is not the right way to solve this. Make the bar for notability of BLPs higher if that is what you want. Also who added the sentence "Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." Was there any discussion? --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this horrible mistake.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It has become clear to me that this will expand the scope of BLP issues beyond BLP(see my above comment for more information). We need less of that not more. Chillum 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a class of articles that are too notable to delete but too misleading or opinionated to stand unchecked. I was thinking, if an article passes a deletion review, it might be a good idea to have a "Bad Article" shield slapped on it which means, in effect, we don't want to delete this article, but it is potentially misleading to the reader, and should be treated with caution. Serendi^podous 09:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like we already have tags for that, such as npov and disputed.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Articleissues for an efficient way to tag multiple issues in an article.--Aervanath (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Links_to_essays_in_policy_pages, due to general nature of the issue. - Altenmann >t 18:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Which was not such a smart idea, since now you're not going to get feedback from your reverter. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I believe people who watch this page have valuable perspectives and I hope you will look at this new page, and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please participate in a discussion about no consensus FfD results for non-free images at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus. Jheald (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a link to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion somewhere in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion review section? If someone could incorporate that somehow into the text I believe it may be useful.. unless we purposely don't want to draw attention to the undeletion page? -- œ^™ 23:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Protonk (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's good to get the information out there that this page exists, however maybe it's not such a good idea for it to draw too much attention. We don't want every person who starts an article about their garage band thinking they have a right to get their page undeleted just by posting a request. Also, some may view it as a waste of time and effort to restore articles that were never meant for Wikipedia. Personally I think it's a nice gesture and may help attract and keep new editors, however I strongly suggest that editors involved in this page don't accept requests to undelete articles that were clearly only meant as a means for promotion of their band/company/self etc. but instead direct them to Deletionpedia. -- œ^™ 21:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We do want everyone to know that they can get material undeleted if it was deleted via PROD or G7 or G6 (and so on). If some set of users has a problem with reading comprehension and posts a bunch of requests to undelete A7s and G11/12s then we will deal with the influx. But I feel that we need a low stress low overhead process to undelete material and that advertising such a process is not a problem. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The admins who work at WP:REFUND don't accept all requests by any means. Right now, about half get rejected. Most of the ones that get accepted are either because it was unclear that it met the CSD criteria, or there's a good faith assertion that the article will be worked on and brought up to snuff in user space before being moved back. (And in one recent case, where it became clear that the article wasn't moving anywhere close to notability, the userfied article was brought to MfD quickly and re-deleted.) As Protonk said, this provides new editors, who may not be comfortable asking the deleting admin to restore an article and may not feel up to navigating the complexities of DRV, a low stress way to quickly get an answer, some guidance, and possibly a restoration of the article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, as long as the admins use a fair amount of discretion (which I'm sure they do) and focus only on productive editors and high-potential articles I have no problem with it. BTW, I also added a link to WP:REFUND at WP:Requests but I was unsure which section to place it in. Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? also now has a link to WP:REFUND. That should be enough I think. -- œ^™ 05:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where productive editors or high potential articles enters in to the decision making process, honestly. Protonk (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well because! What's the point otherwise? How are you helping the project by restoring articles that should not be and never will be on Wikipedia from editors that don't care about improving Wikipedia?? Obviously the article or the editor must have some worth in order for you to restore it for them right? It defeats the purpose of deletion otherwise. -- œ^™ 00:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of wikipedia and of deletion. First of all, any article can be edited by anyone, so it doesn't matter if I think the "author" has worth. Second, my very limited understanding of the world is not meant to be a stand-in for the principle that local subject matter experts will improve articles so long as we do not interfere with them. The purpose of deletion is to remove from the encyclopedia articles whose subjects do not meet the guidelines for inclusion or articles which do not meet our scope. Apart from that fairly narrow remit, deletion is not a preferred route. Protonk (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There's obviously some kind of misunderstanding going on here but I assure you it's not me. -- œ^™ 03:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Do tell. Protonk (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, the point is moot. Any user creating a worthless article will most likely not be requesting for it to be undeleted anyways, unless they want to be disruptive, in which case they're clearly trolling. -- œ^™ 17:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question: What should be done to nominate an article for deletion if an essentially different article with the same name has been nominated and deleted before -- meaning that the "Articles for deletion" page already exists and is an archive which it says not to modify? Should the archive be replaced with the "new" AfD page? If not, then what? Angel Cupid (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Create a 2nd (3rd, ...) nomination, and make it very clear in your nomination that the previous article and debate were about a different subject. The previous AfD should not be changed, renamed, ... in any way or shape. Fram (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the additional nominations should, naturally, be on the same page, since it's the same name -- but clearly marked as different. Good idea; I should have thought of that first. Thank you. Angel Cupid (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no. Not the same page. You want to create a new page of the format [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/<PAGE NAME> (2nd nomination)]] (or 3rd etc.). This allows both easy tracking and the ability to transclude just the necessary page onto the daily AfD log page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Angel Cupid (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a proposal to add a Twinkle option to userfy articles, to be used during new-page patrolling. This would basically encourage non-admin NPPers to userfy articles, and only leave an R2 tagged cross-namespace redirect. There are some open questions both about the criteria that should be applied before userfication, and whether it's desirable to encourage non-admin userfication in the first place. Your input would be valued at WT:TW#Adding userfication to Twinkle.
Amalthea 11:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a general agreement that articles should not be userfied without first getting agreement with the user. This would make it hard to automate. Chillum 20:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It happened again to me recently that I had to nominate a disambiguation page for deletion, and again was stumped in finding exactly where disambiguation pages go when you nominate them for deletion. Seriously, I can't find any place on many, many pages that specifically indicates where to nominate dab pages for deletion.

The way I see it, disambiguation pages could go two ways. One could list them at AFD, or one could list them in MFD. Technically, disambiguation pages are in the article namespace, but since they're also technically not articles, it seems inappropriate to nominate them there. MFD seems appropriate as well, since these are not articles, but also not categories, templates, or files.

I guess what I'm asking for is to (A) get a strong determination about just where dab pages are supposed to go for deletion discussions, and (B) codify that in a few deletion-related project pages. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently challenged a AFD nominator because they had expressed their opinion in the nomination itself and during the discussion added a !vote for deletion with a slightly different argument. Is there part of the policy that covers this behaviour so I can formally clarify if it is okay or not?—Ash (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason why any person cannot continue to argue for whichever outcome they like. It is generally improper to place multiple "!votes", though, and if a person makes multiple bolded "keep" or "delete" (or other) comments, you may strike ones after the first. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So the nomination itself doesn't count as a "!vote"?—Ash (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A nomination is like any other opinion, it should be "counted" once only and given a weight based on the quality of the arguments as they relate to relevant policy. Chillum 20:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding is that the summary required in a deletion template is exactly that: a summary, ie a concise description of why the nomination has been put forth. The person making the nomination is allowed to expand and justify that nomination, and the proper place for this expansion is in the body of the discussion, not in the summary. Also, it is my understanding that discussion pages are set up to discuss the issue and reach a consensus, not to hold an election and get a majority ruling. Limiting any editor to a single comment is not a discussion, and prohibiting the person putting forth the nomination from making any contribution other than the nomination itself would be censorship. TechBear (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. Some people do it because they aren't aware of the unspoken convention that the nomination represents a 'vote' unless explicitly stated otherwise. I don't think formal clarification is necessary. There are too many provisos and what not in this policy anyway, to say nothing of deletion process, AfD, AADD, and so forth. The only time someone needs to step in and say something is if an editor is 'voting' in a fashion that might confuse the closing admin (multiple bolded votes, repeated statement of the nomination text, etc.). Protonk (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please express your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Renaming of multiple categories, including one or more stub categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that WP:REFUND is up and running, I think the Deletion review section of the policy needs revising to make it clear in which cases WP:DRV should be used instead. We need to clarify what sort of deletions can be overturned under what circumstances, how deletions can be challenged and when they need to be discussed with the deleting admin and/or in a forum open to community discussion. Speaking to administrators recently it seems best practices are unclear or ill-understood.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a description of the REFUND process in this edit, with some content taken from the Deletion review section. I wasn't sure if REFUND/undeletion should be its own subsection or part of the Deletion review subsection, so I went half-way and made it a subsection of Deletion review. Review, suggestions, comments welcome.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As a starting point for people, I tried to start a discussion on scope of WP:REFUND and best practices at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_undeletion#Scope_and_best_practices, but not much discussion was generated. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are some deleted User talk pages from years back that I want deleted from the database as well, what steps can I take to ask for those deleted user talk pages (which were deleted by Administrators in 2006 & 2007 and the decision to delete those talk pages was agreed upon, even by me) to be deleted from the database as well? 76.208.168.46 (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Without knowing which pages you are talking about, I can't answer specifically. Try WP:REFUND or asking an admin in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. REFUND is faster, given that you supply wikilinks to the pages in question. keep in mind that the answer may be "no". Protonk (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Umm, Protonk, he wants the deleted revisions removed. That can only be done by an WP:Oversighter and can be requested at WP:RFO, however, the requirements for it being done are very strict and it is unlikely that they would do it for a normal user talk page. MBisanz ^talk 05:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I just read some of the WP:RFO and it looks to me that my user talk pages from years back meet the requirements. It's going to be awkward to make the request, but eventually I have to. 76.208.168.46 (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Definitely misread that. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

MilbornOne posted an opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability#Comment that articles should not be PRODded or nominated at AfD within 48 hours of creation. He was talking specifically about new articles on aircraft accidents. I see no reason why this should not extend to all articles. I fully agree that this would be a good idea. It gives those editors who do not follow the practice of creating articles in a sandbox the time to work on the article. An editor who finds a new article with problems can always raise the issue politely on the talk page of the creator. This proposal would not prevent an article being listed at CSD or prevent articles from being speedied where that is appropriate.

Therefore I'd like to ask what the consensus is for this proposal:-

((PROD)) and ((AfD)) may not be placed on an article within 48 hours of the creation of the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The processes for saying 'hangon' or discussing at length in an AFD are pretty straightforward. If someone raises, for example, an obvious content fork then discussing this in an AFD shortly after creation seems entirely appropriate. The creator has plenty of time to discuss the matter and always has the option of using the ((construction)) in order to encourage discussion on the article talk page.—Ash (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are plenty of new pages that don't fit in the CSD categories, but where some searching shows that they don't fit in Wikipedia either. If these can't be prod'ded or AfD'ed in the first 48 hours, yo uare making the work of the new page patrollers much harder, since you need to separate CSD patrol (immediate, for attacks and so on) from prod/afD patrol (looking only at pages that are at least two days old). Now, a New Page Patroller can do both (and much more) at the same time. Some of these may be considered speedyable or otherwise solvable, but why would we not prod things like Leeds/draft, Compiling environment, Desk sockets (already prodded), Victor Antonio Torres (speedy A7?), On the Ball (TV show), ... Fram (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose in addition to the comments above, this would probably make it harder for the creator to contest the deletion. If the creator writes the article they might not log back in for weeks or months, so if the prod tag is placed 48 hours after creation they'll never see it. On the other hand if the tag is placed not long after the article is created they are much more likely to be around and to contest the deletion. Hut 8.5 11:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As Fram said, there are plenty of articles that have no place in the encyclopedia that aren't speediable. If you eliminate prod as an option for pages that clearly have no encyclopedic potential, people will tag them with IAR speedies, either making CSD an insane asylum or wasting lots of gnome time while people remove the CSD tags, put it on a list to be prodded in two days, then prod the thing. If editors are tagging articles for deletion without following WP:BEFORE, call them out on it. They'll either start following WP:BEFORE or get so sick of the "you have new messages" bar that they won't prod at all. (This goes for CSD, prod and AfD.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support Great idea which if adopted will make the encylopedia more welcoming to new users, and encourage creativity. If an article doesnt qualify for CSD, it can wait two extra days before entering the non urgent deletion streams. Come on deletionists, you know they taste better if you give them a chance to grow! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Somehow I'm not anxious to encourage creativity like "Foofraz is a great drinking game that's been played in my dorm for the last three years." There's no speedy category for this, and when my gsearch turns up 6 blog hits and nothing else, you want me to wait two more days before starting the prod/afd cycle, which will still take a minimum of 7 more days? How on earth is two more days going to make this into an encyclopedic article? And if it would, why not just make prod 9 days (remembering that not so long ago we added two days to prod and AfD ). --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that I have proposed this before, (here) with...err...resounding opposition in response. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• String support - if thwe article isn't covered by speedy deletion, give it a chance before requesting to have it deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• As I said last year when Protonk proposed it, oppose for PROD, as PROD is (ideally) for uncontroversial deletions as is, and it seems pointless to add an extra two days to it. Meh for AfD, as the likelihood that adding two more days to the process is going to result in much improvement to the article that wouldn't already happen in a week is low. So, I kinda' oppose it to avoid being WP:CREEPy, but there isn't much other reason for me to oppose. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, it was almost exactly a year ago, eh? I didn't even notice that. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment the original suggestion I made was related to aviation accidents when a high number of edits can be made related to a news event. These tend to be AfD or Prodded quickly before they have a chance to establish notability. This can end up with long discussions at AfD about not news etc while a wait of a few days could establish notability when events had settled. I understand the comments about enough time in the AfD process for the article to establish notability but these AfDs can attract a large number of opinions because of the current event interest. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• support in principle but there need to be exceptions, for there are articles that do not fit into speedy policy but are appropriate for snow deletes after a few opinions have been collected. And , like Fram and Papyrus and Lifebaka said, I don't really see a great problem with prod, for they will always be around for 7 days in any case, and anyone can remove the prod when they disagree with it. But as for AfD, the main problem is the one Hut raised, of notifying the creator. We could add a layer of notices to handle it, such as my "I advise you to fix this very quickly, before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process, " but we don't want to complicate things too far. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, a new article that is unsuitable for the encyclopedia (but not speedyable) needs to be dealt with as soon as possible, not allowed to be swept away by the stream and forgotten about. --Stormie (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, 48 hours is much too long to wait. Especially considering a prod already gives it 7 days anyway. I tend to adhere to an Immediatist philosophy, where "any detracting quality (such as being ill-formatted or containing less than satisfactory material) should be remedied as soon as possible" and that a newly-created article should be as complete as possible BEFORE putting it in the mainspace.. because I care about Wikipedia's image, and when I picture a troll bragging to his buddies that his joke article is "STILL up after TWO days man! Lulz!" I can see how it would detract from the professional image of Wikipedia's administrators, about whom it may be said that they're not doing their job properly by deleting that crap ASAP, but also the professionalism of Wikipedia as a whole. -- œ^™ 05:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any required improvement can still happen during the AfD/PROD period, and is indeed often more likely to be triggered by an appropriate deletion request.  Sandstein  05:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Among other reasons, an article being a WP:HOAX is not a reason for speedy deletion, unless it's also WP:NONSENSE, but there is no reason to delay the removal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Blatant hoaxes can be speedily deleted. Fences&Windows 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Whatever we do has to take the work force and work flows into account. Even if it's a good idea in principle, if the effect is that the taggers don't take any action two days later, then it won't work. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are overzealous deletionists at NPP and AfD, but we shouldn't snarl up the deletion process with this proposal because of them. A prod can be removed by anyone for any reason (other than serial pointy or disruptive removals), so there is no good reason to delay it. All editors should follow WP:BEFORE, but is making someone intent on deleting an article wait two days likely to make them any more diligent in this? I doubt it. A greater problem with deletion is speedily deleting works in progress without giving the editor any real notice or chance to improve the article. Fences&Windows 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Many, many new articles clearly qualify for deletion by prod or AFD. There is absolutely no reason to need to be forced to wait two days to tag non-notable, etc. articles that aren't CSD. Both prod and AFD still allow for seven days to object or improve. A forced delay will only allow unnecessary articles to stay on WP longer or forever. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Hard limits do not work well when discretion is needed. Some articles need to be dealt with right away. While this may be discouraging to new users, the encyclopedia and the quality of its content is our first priority. By the time an article is 48 hours old the amount of attention it is getting has drastically reduced, it has a chance of being forgotten and just sitting there forever. Chillum 21:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, complete nonsenses. As others have already noted, if the article clearly qualifies for deletion, but not speedy deletion, then no reason at all to force a 2 day wait. There are many hoax and other inappropriate articles that can NOT be speedied (by nature of the "blatant" part), and should be tagged immediately. Both Afd and Prod allow sufficient time to show any notability of the article is tagged for that reason. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose if for nothing else but that it's unworkable. People don't operate on a two-days-later schedule. It will result in far fewer articles that should receive a prod or AfD, not getting them.--162.84.136.254 (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose—as other editors here have noted, there are many articles which should clear be deleted but aren't eligible for CSD. A good example is many band articles tagged for A7 but don't satisfy A7 because they released a studio album and have additional assertions of notability. Many administrators still cheat the process by deleting these articles, but their number would reach somewhere around 100% if this proposal was implemented. No one wants to try to help out at CSD and then realize they need to do more work just for a number of bad articles that should be deleted anyway. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see no reason to exempt new articles from our policies. This also includes the pseudopolicy that surmountable problems are best fixed by editing. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose MilborneOne's argument is valid and I understand his point. Perhaps we could make an exception for current events of this kind. Otherwise I think any editor can improve the article with ((PROD)) or ((AfD)) template. The templates aren't "biting", they inform about the rules of our project and other people's opinions in a standard way. This is an encyclopedia, not a kindergarten. No need to complicate things, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Clearly the consensus is not in favour of the proposal. My thanks to all who commented on the proposal. Maybe a bit more discretion would be a better way of avoiding PRODs and AfDs on recent-event related articles. IMHO, all editors should be enouraged to make use of a personal sandbox to perfect articles before releasing them into mainspace, rather than creating unfinished articles and then working on them when they are "live".Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Not at all. That's perverse. NPPs shouldn't be deleting articles with potential. This is a wiki, people should be creating articles like this or this without having to go through some strange migration process. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • No, what's perverse is linking to examples of new articles from 2001 and 2005. The more Wikipedia grows, the more obscure the topic of the average new article - and hence the more necessary that a new article reaches certain minimum standards of sourcing and content which enables others to understand and expand it. Over time that makes it more and more advantageous to do a draft "paddling pool" stage first, before being thrown into the deep end of the swimming pool. Rd232 ^talk 07:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That's not really a feature of growth and the relative obscurity of uncreated and newly created articles doesn't play a big role. Much more powerful is the notion that wikipedia has "grown up" and will be a proper place for articles rather than a freewheeling environment for editing and collaboration. Protonk (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Well that's your view, I disagree. Rd232 ^talk 10:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Your first one makes a clear assertion of notability and wouldn't be deleted anyway. And the second probably should have been a section in Byzantine Empire (which at the time looked like this) rather than a standalone article, until it had some more content. Neither really demonstrate a problem with the current system which would be helped by this proposal. --Stormie (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't say that they would. My point is that we are moving toward a set of expectations for articles that they should more like DYK material than 1-2 sentence unwikified stubs before they are created. And that in doing so we are placing an implicit barrier to entry. The point was raised in response to mjroot's reasoning for withdrawing the procedure, not in support of it. I proposed an almost identical policy last year, but I'm less sure of the merits today, hence why I didn't offer a support or opposing view. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Why Mjroots was wrong in his proposal and wrong in his withdrawal rationale. My experience with this article convinced me that prodding articles quickly is necessary if the New Page Patrollers are ever going to make any headway, and at the same time it pushes the article creators to improve their article quickly, rather than allow it to lay around as a two-sentence stub for months. But I also disagree with those who argue that everyone should create articles in their sandbox before displaying them. With the same article mentioned above, I had contributors expanding it more quickly than I was able; those helping editors may well have been more inspired to contribute to a nearly blank canvass than they would have to a fully-fabricated article. Just my 2¢. Unschool 05:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Allowing people to work on an article before it gets deleted is a bad idea, as they will feel very disappointed. It is much better to delete it from the start, before there is too much emotional involvement. SyG (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. What is really needed is a mandatory tutorial programme for new users so they don't create articles that should be deleted in the first place. JBsupreme (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)