After a prod is declined, the reason being given for declining it may convince the person placing the prod that there was no good reason for deletion--what then would be the purpose of sending to AfD, if nobody any longer wants the article deleted.
If I decline a prod because I think that it will not be uncontroversial, then I should send it to AfD so the presumed controversy can be settled. If I decline a prod because I think the situation unclear, then i should send it to AfD to be clarified. But if I decline a prod because there were better options under WP:BEFORE, why should it go to AfD--the other options need to be explored, and then the article sent to AfD only if they are considered unsuitable. Even moire, if I decline a prod because I consider the reason for deletion invalid altogether, then if everyone involved accepts what i say, why should it go to AfD. I patrol prod regularly, and decline a number of prods. More than half the time, nobody takes them to AfD, & I assume it is because they think my argument good enough or become convinced that the likelihood of success in deleting it will be low. I disagree with Phil that people do not follow up prods--most of those placing prods are familiar with the process, and know to check--I certainly realized from the day I started placing them that I would need to keep track when I place one, to see what happens to it--if a prod of mine is declined, I do not automatically go to AfD, but consider what was said. People unaware of how we do deletion do not use prod, but send articles unnecessarily to AfD that could instead be prodded. Automatically sending articles to AfD when deprodded is a method certain to increase the number of afds for articles that do not need deletion at all. We already have more AfD nominations than can be intelligently dealt with. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Phil Nash <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew Turvey wrote: >>> ----- "Surreptitiousness" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Since prods can be undeleted by any admin without any >>>> kerfuffle, I can't see the harm in allowing a second bite at prod. >>>> Have we discussed amending PROD to allow second bites? >>> >>> I think sometimes people forget that we have over 100,000 active >>> editors, only just over 1,500 of whom are admins - less than 2%. >>> Non-admins can't even see deleted articles let alone restore them or >>> discuss them. That's the "harm" of allowing re-proding of contested >>> deletions - it excludes most of the community from the discussion. >>> >>> Andrew > > I agree, up to a point. Requests for undeletion of PROD'ded articles to > admins in my experience are treated with courtesy, and some are userfied to > deal with the reasons for CSD/PROD. If they then don't make it, fair enough, > but in my experience those requesting undeletion/userfication are those who > created the article in the first place, or a different editor with a perhaps > better information to hand to establish notability. However, many > inexperienced editors create articles without a full understanding of > [[WP:GNG]] and its specialist project-based criteria; PROD, like CSD is a > little of a blunt instrument, but you'd think a week should be long enough > to alert article creators, and interested parties, to react accordingly. I > would agree. however, that PROD, once declined, should trigger AFD, because > there is obviously a debate to be had, and we cannot reply upon eternal > vigilance or even substantial commitment from volunteers, and that includes > admins. > > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
