Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Implementing File PROD

Per the closure of the above discussion, these are the steps I have identified that need to occur for the implementation of File PROD. There is likely more that needs doing, so please add to the list as necessary, and mark items as done. Sam Walton (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Policy page

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion should be updated to reflect the above consensus.

Before doing this I think there should be a discussion as to whether or not to use the same page. WP:BPROD is a totally separate page from WP:PROD. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I made a first pass at the lead, but undid because I wasn't aware of WP:BPROD, and I agree it may make more sense for a separate page, though I think I would advocate for adding the information here since it was decided above that the process and rules would be essentially the same as for articles. Sam Walton (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, use the existing page plz. Too many pages make memorization difficult. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree, if at some point down the road FPROD ends up being so different from normal PROD that it needs its own article, it can be done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Updating the existing page, PROD, is better than creating a separate, new one. --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

yellow tickY Draft written User:Train2104/PROD draft since it appears consensus favors one page. — Train2104 (t • c) 17:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Your draft looks good to me. I corrected one minor typo but otherwise it looked spot-on. ♠PMC(talk) 19:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Made some minor changes, but agree this looks good. Sam Walton (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done Draft posted to PROD page. If splitting is required, my edit can be reverted. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: or any other admin - is a history merge necessary? – Train2104 (t • c) 03:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Probably? But Special:MergeHistory won't let me. Sam Walton (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I requested the histmerge. --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
History logs merged. George Ho (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that the update is implemented, I want to PROD an image. May I do it right away? George Ho (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's orphaned, I see no reason why not. If it's not orphaned you'll have to add the caption tags by hand. The first file PROD was File:SelectTV logo.png, though that could've been F5'ed anyway. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Caption template

A version of or option for Template:Deletable image-caption for PROD should be created.

I've created one in the sandbox. Template:Deletable image-caption/sandbox — Train2104 (t • c) 14:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I'd personally prefer that the template made mention of proposed deletion, or linked to the page (either here or a new page, per above) that described the process. Sam Walton (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
See the testcases for the full functionality of the template. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I misunderstood. That looks great! Sam Walton (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done — Train2104 (t • c) 00:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The sandbox version is not yet implemented into the main template, which is template-protected. May you please do the changes? --George Ho (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png Self-trout Done. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Nice fish ;). Anyway, I updated the documentation after some testing. Guess I'll try PROD-ding with a caption right away then. George Ho (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The "click here to object" link doesn't remove the file prod template from the edit box. I'm going to ask at WP:VPT since I know nothing about MediaWiki URL parameters. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Did you try what I added? --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Saw the removal. BTW, the template has used dates without using |date=. How do I insert reason without |reason=? George Ho (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Aliased parameter 2 to reason. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, all the best. George Ho (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Caption bot

A bot task should be filed to add and remove the caption template automatically.

What about removing the caption template? I removed one four days after the FFD discussion ended. --George Ho (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Added "and remove" :) Sam Walton (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bot request filed. While writing the request I ran into a question - should the caption template also be added on user pages and talk pages? — Train2104 (t • c) 17:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: You mean, should captions be added if the image is present on user/talk pages? I'd think so. Sam Walton (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was my question. I guess there's nothing bad about doing so. There's no point in editing talk page archives though. When the file is deleted the bot should also be removing or commenting out the image. — Train2104 (t • c) 13:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

PROD template

Template:Proposed deletion should be updated to read and function correctly on file pages, or a new template should be created.

I've created Template:Proposed deletion/dated files/sandbox, but I need someone more familiar with the intricacies of writing for substitution to put a conditional in the main template (file goes to this, all other to the article version). I'm also not sure of the wording to use...suggesting the user edit the file description page to address the concern seems like it won't work for most of the common FFD deletion reasons. Suggesting the user upload a new version may be a little WP:BEANSy. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The template should also include some form of Commons-detection, if possible, so people don't prod files on Commons. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Template:Proposed deletion/sandbox for service. I don't think we can detect Commons files, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I implemented a hackish Commons checker by looking for "/commons/" in the filepath...not sure the false positive/negative rate of that. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've made it live now since it is completely backwards compatible; there is no change in behavior when tagging an article. The template places also {{book-prod/dated}} when in the book namespace - but not in the userspace (for user-books, use {{subst:book prod}}. — Train2104 (t • c) 00:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Previewed one of non-free images, like File:Michaeljrockwithyou.jpg. It still says "Please use PROD only on articles." George Ho (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Substitution is never easy — Train2104 (t • c) 13:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: I previewed using PROD template on Olivia Hack and File:ToE Cover.jpg. The PROD template can detect a past AFD nom, but it doesn't detect a past FFD nom. How can it be fixed? George Ho (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's more to do with Template:Proposed deletion/dated files. George Ho (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Past AFD and MFD noms are easy to detect since they're on their own their own subpage for which existance can be checked. Unfortunately, that's not possible for the other XFD's. – Train2104 (t • c) 11:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: How do we code to detect the date, like Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 1, and link a file? We had previous names, like "Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion" and "Wikipedia:Files for deletion". I found Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 14, 2005, currently blanked, and which had page history logs. --George Ho (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I previewed the template at File:Profile pic of my chosing.jpg. I don't see the template detecting past PROD-ding. George Ho (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

UW templates

The various user warning and notification templates should be updated or created.

There are 15 of these, which is a lot. It shouldn't be too hard to make them vary their content based on file vs article, but do we need all 15? I only see a handful that are actually routine cases (notify creator, notify on deprod, page ineligible for PROD). The rest seem like template-creep to me. I wouldn't object taking some to TFD. — Train2104 (t • c) 00:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You can do TfD if you want. I don't object to the nomination. --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
TfD created. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
For easier navigation. --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done Template:Proposed deletion notify/sandbox, which is perhaps the most important of all of them. The same logic can easily be copied to the others, pending TfD. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done at Template:Proposed deletion notify. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Luis150902: Is there are reason you're invoking String instead of using magic words and parser functions alone like I did in the sandbox? Among other things, this will not work with "Image:" prefixes. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I've just fixed it. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 20:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Template:Deprod-reprod, Template:Prod contested and Template:Prod-summary. Currently all 15 PROD UW templates are either done, in TfD or in TfM. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The TfM discussion is closed as merge to either Template:Deprod or Template:deprod-m. George Ho (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Merged. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary of templates

Template Status
{{Old prod full}} Done
{{Proposed deletion notify}} Done
{{Deprod}} Done
{{Deprod-reprod}} Done
{{Prod contested}} Done
{{Prod hint}} Done
{{Prod-summary}} Done
{{Prod-speedy}} Done
{{Please prod}} Done

Other bot tasks

Get a bot to create the daily categories and a version of WP:PRODSUM.

I'll claim this. When the PROD template and its (new) parameters are finalized, ping me and I'll set this up. -FASTILY 23:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fastily: Template seems to be up and running (see above). Sam Walton (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Great, I'll try to have this done by early next week. -FASTILY 03:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104, @Samwalton9: Apologies for the delay, just finished the bot. It reports out to User:FastilyBot/File PROD Summary. I'll have it running automatically (refreshing every 6 hours) starting sometime this week. Regards, FASTILY 09:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks good! Could the various reports FastilyBot does be run on a separate account without the bot flag, so we can watch it? – Train2104 (t • c) 14:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Train2104. Glad you like it! Could you explain your reasoning for your request? Yes, it's possible to toggle the bot edit flag, but that seems like a strange thing to do for a report that will be run on a consistent schedule. Also, it is already possible to watch the page, and toggle the filter to show bot edits in your watchlist. Regards, FASTILY 22:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess I could toggle the bot edit filter, though I really don't want to... – Train2104 (t • c) 15:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle

A request to update Twinkle should be filed.

Regarding this point - I haven't looked at the sandbox code yet, but if {{prod/dated}} is modified to work in the File: namespace, then Twinkle won't actually need to be updated. Saves the update. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
My idea was to use two different /dated subpages with the same master template and syntax. Twinkle would still need to be updated to show the PROD option on file pages.
I've filed a task, and will update as necessary. Sam Walton (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I discussed this at WT:Twinkle#The outcome of proposing to apply PROD to files. George Ho (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I updated the Twinkle docs. Sam Walton (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Some bugs to work out first...also, I don't think it should go production until the bot is up and running. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
May we implement the changes without Twinkle then? George Ho (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Twinkle is ready. MusikAnimal also took on the task of the caption bot, which is what we're waiting for right now. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I've started work on this, but just to let you know this will not be easy. For instance, if the image were in an infobox, the bot has to know what the image description field is called, which may differ infobox to infobox. I'm not sure if there are other templates used to show images, and what to do in those cases, and also properly update descriptions in <gallery>...</gallery>'s, etc. When it comes time for a BRFA I guess we'll have to give the go ahead for this new process, otherwise there's no way we could do an accurate trial. I'll keep you updated on progress MusikAnimal talk 13:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
There have been various iterations of such bots in the past - did they not take into account these cases? – Train2104 (t • c) 14:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: Going by the source code, it doesn't look like Sambot handled infoboxes. What other bots did similar tasks? MusikAnimal talk 20:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought SoxBot 19 was a different bot, but it was just a different botop reusing SamBot's code. In the worst case the infobox part can be done semi-automatically, I can't see images being used that prominently PRODed that often. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I apologize to all that I'm going to have to back out of this project. See Special:Permalink/774487746#File PROD bot for more. In short, someone who works with Python or AWB may be able to do this a lot easier than I can. For me it will require more time than I have :( I'm not sure how urgent it is to get a bot up and running, but I personally would not consider it a blocker for rolling out the new File PROD process. You may in for a long wait, while doing this manually shouldn't be too much of a burden given high-use images would seemingly be less likely to get PROD'd. At any rate, I do apologize to have misled you all and to have kept you waiting. I am going to get to work on updating Twinkle, though :) Regards MusikAnimal talk 20:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
That sounds fair. @Fastily: When you write your summary bot, could you include the number of uses each file has, so that manually adding the templates is easier? I agree that it's not a blocker to rolling out the process, the Twinkle update should move forwards. I will update the policy page. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing. Regards, FASTILY 06:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Umm... may Twinkle be updated without the caption bot? George Ho (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Other policy pages

Was File PROD the best approach?

After going through my first batch of deleting files under the newly amended PROD criteria, I can't help but if this was the best approach to the concerns that led to the RFC. Aside from dumping file deletion nominations over to PROD, I came across a few issues that only feel like an additional workload for admins working in the area due to how broad the nature of the process is, and how specific issues are for files. As I was unaware of the discussion and change up until last week, I had zero opportunity to analyze the proposal and its possible drawbacks.

Based on the background information provided by Iazyges, I was under the impression that File PROD was only meant to target files that would have been characterized as potential nominees to be deleted under the basis of "orphaned" and "no foreseeable encyclopedic use" via FFD. In practice, it is not being used so narrowly: File:Pulpcomicfiction.jpg was nominated for deletion as "possibly copyrighted", File:Psyco Gundam MK-III.jpg, File:Protectgear92 redspectaclesdetail front.jpg, File:Protectgear92 redspectaclesdetail back.jpg, as "probably copyrighted", and so on. We have specific tags for instances of derivative works: {{Di-dw no license}} and {{Di-dw no source}}, which neatly categorize problem files under daily Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status and Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source categories. Other files (screenshots of video games, TV shows, and other copyrighted material) are simply being nominated as "file with unclear usability on project" when they are rather blatant copyright violations, or at the very least require WP:OTRS. These files should be nominated as {{db-f9}}, {{di-no permission}}, and so on. Then there are cases like File:Profile pic of my chosing.jpg, which was nominated as orphaned in spite of it being used on the uploader's userpage (which the author pointed out).

Instead, File PROD is being used in a far too general sense. There is hardly a difference between it being nominated as such or at FFD, the workload remains the same; file gets tagged for deletion, no one comments on it, and an adminstrator deletes it. What hoops did we jump around? We moved the backlog from one place to another.

A much more narrow approach is needed, with the rigid requirements of being an unused (obviously) freely licensed file with no foreseable encyclopedic use. It would have made more sense to follow the procedure at WP:FCSD. WP:CSD#F12 could have been formed as "F12. Orphaned freely licensed images, no foreseeable encyclopedic use" (or something less of a mouthful), with an appropriate tag like {{di-orphaned free use}} (ie, {{di-orphaned fair use}}) or something along those lines categorized under Category:Orphaned freely licensed Wikipedia files (ie, Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files). The scope is clear and distinct, the files are neatly categorized with others with the exact same issue, and are easier to review for admins. This is much more manageable approach for me. xplicit 01:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Applying PROD to files should reduce the backlogging of FFD. However, not everyone knows that PROD-ding is extended to files. I notified others about this. Also, I started the discussion about speedy deletion criteria for files, but it got ignored. I also started another discussion about the F7 criterion, "invalid fair use claim". --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC); edited. 07:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Explicit. George Ho (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, too many criteria, and CSD still has issues besides criteria for files. I read that criteria for articles have been contested disputed in the project talk page. --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC); edited. 07:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, what difference does it make where the files go? It's either pushed to a different area where the same admins work and their backlog remains the same, or to admins less experienced in handling files and increasing a backlog for them. "Too many criteria" is a really poor excuse and I fail the perception of other criteria have to do with anything. xplicit 02:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
If the proposed F12 is created, how many days until deletion? I don't see the point of creating F12 if the length is "seven days", the same length as PROD. Also, that would lead to another one of those unnecessary "di-(stuff)" templates. I would hope shorter length to deletion. BTW, struck out my previous poor rationale to oppose another criterion. George Ho (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... How about this, Explicit: a delete-file user right? Recently, the consensus approved the autopatrol-file right, though it's currently stalled. George Ho (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I had a look at a day's worth of files when they showed up in prod patrol. It seemed that the process is being abused by the editor User:Jon Kolbert who has a gauge on his user page indicating that he plans to nominate all orphan files regardless of their potential. That's about 100,000 files. Many of these wouldn't be missed but the indiscriminate purge would include files such as File:Aker bilk.jpg – a picture of the famous musician – Acker Bilk, which would fit nicely into that person's article. When one contests such PRODs, the editor just nominates again. Notice that the editor has already nominated that file for deletion three times now, including twice for PROD. As due diligence is not being done, I suggest that this editor be topic banned from the use of PRODs but perhaps there's another side to this and so they are invited to justify their behaviour. More generally, the process seems quite broken in that it's difficult to review hundreds of nominations without a better interface which should include thumbnails of the images in question. Andrew D. (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "The workload" may remain the same, since an uncontested FFD was a delete, but the benefit of this new process is that it reduces the number of things at FFD so that the ones that really do require the attention of other experts are not lost in a mess of uncontroversial deletions. The original proposal as put forth had some of the restrictions you mentioned, but the consensus was that additional restrictions beyond that of article PROD (which is very open ended) amounted to instruction creep and were unnecessary. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    This appears to have made a clear point that File PROD maybe shouldn't have been pushed through. If anything, this just shows the capability of how detrimental this change can be. A file nominated under File PROD can be viewed by as little as two people—the person who tagged it and the reviewing administrator. Although FFD is not a particularly popular venue, it was not uncommon for random users (who did not upload the file and were not regular participants) to argue to keep a file due to a beneficiary use the nominator could not see. File PROD has eliminated that possibility almost entirely. As it is consider non-controversial, much less care is taken into account over something being nominated at a deletion discussion venue. xplicit 02:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    Hmm... I don't know. Per current PROD rules, if PROD tag is removed, or if a previously PROD-ded image is undeleted, a file would become ineligible to be PROD-ded. Nevertheless, some uploaders are no longer active, some other uploaders are not easy to communicate with, and image pages are hardly visited. We have the image caption template informing readers about the deletion, but sometimes those "caption" parameters in infoboxes can be overlooked. George Ho (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it's very important to note a few things here.
1. As for the File:Profile pic of my chosing.jpg case, the file was tagged, a few hours later the editor decided to include it on their user page. This, for me is a perfectly acceptable result, but I don't go around tagging userpage images that are in use - which seemed to be how it was laid out.
2. As for using PROD over CSD in not-so clear copyvio situations, a lot of these files were uploaded 5-10+ years ago. With PROD anyone can take it down and the file cannot be sent to PROD again, whereas CSD-F9 that isn't one of the criteria. Either way, most of those images I found fitting that would've been in Wikipedia orphaned files anyway, so a slight tweak of wording in the rationale should rectify that should people be too bothered.
3. I've heard that some say my goal is to nominate all 100K files in the category PROD... for those people I'd encourage them to check out my contributions on Commons. I don't think it's too radical of a position to take if we have 100K files in a backlog - being that we should separate the ones that are useful, and transfer them to commons. The other half of that is weeding out the ones that aren't, and running them through a consensus-based deletion process. Cheers. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Who's doing the work of separating the useful images? Please could Jon Kolbert explain his process? Me, what I do is use CAT:PROD to see what has been nominated. The file names are not very informative and so it's then quite a chore to click the files individually to inspect them. From my sample, I reckon that I'd remove the PROD tag in about 50% of cases. This seems like a lot of unproductive churning. As the process of nominating 100,000 files is likely to exhaust editors, the likelihood is that no-one will actually check for cases such as the file above. Andrew D. (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
RangeTurningCircle.jpg
  • Here's a fresh example from the expiring batch. This seems like a credible image but Kolbert claims that there is no clear usability. I'm going to remove that PROD immediately but there are about 160 more files to be checked. The process is broken. Andrew D. (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jon Kolbert:
  • 1. An oversight on part. My bad.
  • 2. A prime example of File PROD overstepping its bounds. If the validity of a copyright tag is put into question, it needs to be sent to FFD for other editors to review it and determine whether it needs to be deleted or have a different copyright tag. Some editors are good with certain aspects of copyright, but not in others (threshold of originality, PD-old, PD-SomeGovernment, etc). File PROD can not handle this.
  • 3. The approach to orphaned freely licensed images has always been "unused, no target article, must be useless", even at FFD. I have, at various times, completely ignored a deletion nomination and moved a file to Commons because it is clearly within project scope. For example, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 28#File:Impossible cube made in AOI.jpg. It remains ununsed to this day, but to argue that it holds no encylopedic value it completely wrong and damaging to the project. xplicit 02:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Expired file PRODs not in category?

I'm not sure if this was by design, but expired file PRODs aren't showing up in the expired PROD category. Design feature or flaw? ♠PMC(talk) 08:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The template is placing them in the category, but User:Joe's Null Bot isn't running over Category:All files proposed for deletion. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, which is what purges the cache and makes them show up? Is the bot operator aware or should we advise him? ♠PMC(talk) 20:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Joe Decker: ... – Train2104 (t • c) 13:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, I'll take a look. --joe deckertalk 15:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, *files*, got it. Yeah, let me do a test and see if that'll work--it should, I'll do the appropriate BAG request. --joe deckertalk 15:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Should be easy, BAG request filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Joe's Null Bot 12. Likely that will be speedy approved. --joe deckertalk 15:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion&oldid=781255768"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA