Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 57

I've been trying to familiarize myself with the various aspects of this project, and have been going over some of the material presented. I'm finding it hard to understand how things like MFD or stub types for deletion or CFD are relevant to this project. Article rescuing is almost always a matter of notability and finding appropriate sources. These other discussions are related to dozens of different internal policies and can have a thousand different reasons for being proposed. There is no advice, nor do I think there could or should be, on how one would go about rescuing a template or a userbox, or a nonfree image. If this is the article rescue project, I suggest that such material is outside of the scope of this project, and as far as I can tell has never actually been a real focus here anyway. Therefore I believe all material not related to rescuing actual content be removed and explicitly excluded from the project scope. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

See a couple examples from my recent experience. In this files for deletion discussion, all it took to rescue an image file was a solid fair use rationale. In this other example I found that some valid portals like this one are being nominated for deletion and often deleted on the basis of number of recent edits, which has never been a criterion to remove content. The discussion made clear that the criterion to remove navigation pages should be their lack of utility, not time since last update.

Many times the best way to rescue content at MfD is to provide a good explanation of how the policy applies, find some other relevant policy that was not being taken into account, or think of an alternate way in which content can be made useful and policy-compliant (such as merging with a similar topic, changing its structure or fixing the ways in which it violates policy).

We all know of examples where deletion requests are made without proper care, using semi-automated tools that doesn't show proper context or citing an invalid reason. As long as the WP:BURDEN to keep content is placed on those willing to keep it, the ARS provides the service to bring the attention of motivated people with some good experience with content policies, which can help interpreting those in a consistent way. The most common requirement is to provide sources for articles of dubious notability, but is by no means the only one as there are many other content policies that require analysis in how they're applied. Diego (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done some of those same things myself, it is often absurdly easy to fix problems with non-free files and so forth, I just don't see what this project actually does as a project in that regard. There's no current guidance other than essentially saying "go participate in these discussions" which is exactly what we want to avoid. The focus here should be on rescuing content on notable subjects by locating usable sources, not arguing the fine points of policy to save some user box or a stale article draft on a subpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Narrowing the scope is fine, but more importantly we need to ensure the message is "proactively address issues before involving oneself, or not, in discussion about the issues". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

We are the "Article" Rescue Squadron, so anything that's not an article is technically out of scope and I usually don't attend to them, but I don't get offended by an occasional listing of a non-article page if its something that needs assistance.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well then we have different opinions here; I don't see any problem saying "go participate in these discussions". The AfD is sorely lacking of attention, so encouraging participation where it's most needed can only be a good thing. Now if the problem is that of the perceived canvassing, that is to be addressed by encouraging meaningful participation that really discusses policies instead of placing me too !votes, and by gathering attention from all types of audiences (which is what the proposal to change the list into a delsort is meant to achieve).

But the idea that any attention gathering is bad should be dismissed once and for all. Rescuing notable articles lacking sources is just one possibility, and I see no benefit in excluding all the others.

(As for being the Article Rescue Squadron, last time I checked we get most files, templates and categories used as part of articles, so any content that is intended as part of the article is fair game for the project; maybe it makes sense to exclude project-space-only content such as essays, but all other content intended as part of the main space is part of our focus). Placing artificial restrictions of the members' activity is not going to help anyone, although I agree that placing a focus on content improvement first and policy discussion second is in the spirit of the project. Diego (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose limiting the scope of the project to only articles, and I agree with Diego's statements and philosophy above regarding this matter. Instead, perhaps the project's pages can be improved to provide more policy-based information regarding Wikipedia content and discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• See also: My proposal below to rename this project to WikiProject:Rescue. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. There's seems to be some institutional inertia here. Renaming the project instead of changing its scope, which I note has, sadly, attracted more attention, places the focus on the cosmetic rather than the substantive. Let's not get focused on that, forget I brought up the slight discrepancy between the name and the scope, that wasn't really the main point. (but if ya'll insist on going there my vote would be for "content rescue project" or some other name that focusses on content)

So, how can we possibly offer any advice on how to rescue stuff at MFD? The very nature of it means that things land there for all sorts of reasons, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with sourcing and notability, which are the things I believe this project is/should be most concerned with. And a lot of stuff that gets nominated there really shouldn't be on WP at all. Why spend time coordinating users to rescue angry/divisive/racist userboxes, POV rants disguised as articles, essays that grossly misrepresent policy, hopelessly flawed article drafts that were made four years ago by users that never edited again, etc?

On the other hand, the point about FFD is conceded. I think we've all seen that a lot users would rather nominate files for deletion than spend a few minutes fixing a bad FUR or adding the right license, and images are content of the encyclopedia so they are clearly within this projects remit. So how about we consider the scope to be "content related only"? This would include:

• articles
• image, sound, and video files of any kind intended for use in articles
• templates intended to be used in articles

and it would not include

• essays
• user talk templates
• userboxen
• anything else in userspace
• Anything else in the Wikipedia namespace
• Anything anywhere not intended to be used to improve the actual content of the encyclopedia

Really, everything that is not in article space is secondary and should not be the focus of any project whose goal is to improve content. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I know we are not supposed to "stalk" other Wikipedians, but I can't help being nosy sometimes. I am always curious to find out why certain individuals go out of their way to nominate large numbers of other people's creations for deletion. In other words I wonder what makes these people "tick" - why aren't they busy helping to build up Wikipedia like others are doing?

One of the things that never ceases to amaze me is the kind of articles such people have started themselves. This is an example of an article I found: Jim Keogh - note it has only one (questionable?) reference now, and started out with no references at all. So why is the person who started this article not applying his skills to improving his own articles instead of spending time chasing other editors?

I am just curious and hope it is OK to post this here? (I intend to let the person know that I, and hopefully others, are academically discussing his behavior) Ottawahitech (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this relates to article rescue. WP:DR is thataway. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• I see how it relates, but that editor didn't start the article, Ottawa, that 2005 edit was moving the article into userspace, probably because he thought the subject was not notable. It looks like Mr. Keogh created the article on himself.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Milowent, you are right. I did not notice the article was merely moved into user space, not created. In a way I am glad, because I wanted to illustrate my concern, but didn't want to put anyone in the hotseat. Suffice it to say that there are many, many other examples I can come up with.

As far as the question about how this relates to the ARS, it appears to me that the members of the Article Rescue Squadron are many times outnumbered by the squadrons of "noms" (those nominating articles and other content for deletion). It appears to me that if nothing happens very soon to resolve this avalanche of deletions, the members of this squadron will burn out, and with them will go most new wikipedians who come here to build this resource. At least this is how I see it. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...daring to step into "enemy territory" for a moment here, but I can't resist this one. You call out Stifle for creating unsourced bios (something rather common in the 2005 project era), suggesting that time wasted nominating articles would be better spent sourcing others. Beyond the obvious "why does it have to be either/or?" rebuke, one could ask why your fellow ARS members create articles that have either already been slam-dunk deletion candidates (Jessica Sporty) or will be shortly (Til (rabbit))? Tarc (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Tarc. I don't think we have met before? Just to let you know I am not officially a member of ARS - so please don't assume I am talking as a representative ARSer :-) I am, however, an avid inclusionist, I think.

I am actually glad you have decided to step into "enemy territory". I really do want to undrestand why people nominate so many articles for deletion. BTW I joined in 2007 and had no idea it was common to contribute articles with no references in 2005. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this would be why I thought this discussion was a bad idea. It's not a discussion aimed at improving how articles are saved from deletion, instead it is just venting and making accusations about edits from 2005. Please take it elsewhere/nowhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Beeblebrox, I am not sure why you call this venting, and I really had no idea that the purpose of this page is to discuss improvement of articles exclusively. Since I am an uninvited guest I guess I will depart. Sorry for the disruption. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps "venting" wasn't the correct term, but this is a WikiProject talk page, and this discussion is not related to co-ordination or improvement of that project, but is rather concerned with a specific user. You are more than welcome to remain and discuss any topic relevant to the project's purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• First they stepped on that earless rabbit, now they want to kill him again? Anyway, CallawayRox created those articles, you'd have to ask him. Suffice it to say, if Callaway can't find comrade spirits here, even if others of us wouldn't create these articles, where can he go? Not every creation of his is deleted, and he does other work too. Beeble, perhaps Ottawa's questions are fraught with some peril, but the history here is not readily understandable to newer editors. Things we take for granted, like WP:N, and even WP:V, simply are foreign to almost every newby wikipedian, I think his inquiries are fine. They relate to article rescue and deletion practices, basic things any editor should understand.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see you discussing verifiability or notability at all in this thread, each comment you have made here pertains more to users than to content. That's not what WikiProject talk pages are for. This is the sort of thing that needs to stop happening here if this project is ever to be fully functional and not the center of endless drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject pages, every single one of them, are overhead. They are administrative pages for discussing whatever is useful to the project. They do not do any good if we shy from frank (but civil whenever possible) conversation. Ottawa's question at the outset was "I am always curious to find out why certain individuals go out of their way to nominate large numbers of other people's creations for deletion." What's wrong with asking that question? If this talk page can't be a place to discuss the philosophy of AfD, where even Tarc feels he can chime in, what good is it? Understanding why articles get nominated for deletion is a big part of understanding what one needs to do to fix it or decide whether it can't be fixed. This doesn't mean you have to slag the nominators, but its good to understand their philosophy.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If we're not "slagging a nominator" then why were any specific user names brought up? I don't concede that point, but even if I did, you haven't contributed one word to this conversation that would help a newbie understand deletion nominations. What understanding of anyone's philosophy have any of your remarks imparted? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• None yet, because you keep complaining that we can't even talk about it. I personally find nothing wrong with calling out a nominator when they make a very bad nomination. AfD itself is telling the article creator they created a bad article. One should keep it civil, but if a nominator is not told they have done something improper, how can they be expected to refine their practices? Same thing for article creators. And for Ottawa, you can see some of my views under essays on my user page, or User:Milowent/Essays/Insights#On The Psychology of AfDs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• To answer the OP's question, some people feel that the encyclopedia is improved by removing bad articles. Thus they feel by nominating such article's for deletion, they are working towards a better Wikipedia. It really is that simple. The above discussion could have probably been avoided by just answering the question, even if it was technically off=topic instead of arguing about whether it was an appropriate question or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, its more complicated than that, unfortunately, in my view. Assuming everyone wants to do something to help, its much easier to get articles deleted than to write or improve them. You can get more "bang for your buck", some seem to feel, by focusing on deletion. One can toil for hours to write a decent start class article, or even an hour for a stub. Today I saved Wiidakko from speedy deletion, and wrote Ääni ja Vimma (music competition). I could have probably found 25 AfD/prod candidates in the same amount of time. Funnily though, for every "bad article" deleted, many times that number replace it (900+ net new articles every day). Hoaxes and things that truly fail WP:V are where deletion efforts should be focused, if we really wanted to improve the project most efficiently.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose that the name of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron be changed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rescue. This simple name change would be congruent with the project's focus upon articles and content, and would also reduce the project's perceptions of being a “Squadron” of people, which has somewhat “militant” overtones. A squadron is generally defined as “A body of cavalry comprising two companies or troops, and averaging from one hundred and twenty to two hundred soldiers.” (et al.), whereas a team is generally defined as “Any group of people involved in the same activity, especially referring to sports and work.” Furthermore, per Wikipedia:WikiProject, “A WikiProject is a group of editors that want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I support this. "WikiProject Rescue" has a nice ring to it. This would clarify the scope and reduce WP:BATTLEGROUND concerns. Diego (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Would those who complain about us actually stop simply because of a name change? If so, why not call us the Super Happy Bunny Rabbit Friendly Helping Association? We'll all have smiley faces and pictures of cute bunny rabbits next to our names, so people know we're out to help.   Dream Focus 17:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Against. I don't see any militant overtones. When I was in Boy Scouts we had "patrols" and "troops" and even wore matching uniforms! Some of us even had Swiss Army Knives! No one ever thought we were a militant group though. The name has been fine for years now, I see no reason to change it now. Dream Focus 18:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Scouting has a strong military origin. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes it did. But does anyone believe its part of the military now? I find it unlikely that many if anyone at all really sees the word "squadron" and starts thinking we're some sort of militaristic group out to attack them. Dream Focus 17:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• There have been a number of discussions in the past 4.5 years to rename the group, but they really haven't gone anywhere, so I'm sort of against change for the same reasons proposed before. As one of the few wikipedia projects ever covered by mainstream press, I see no benefit from getting rid of a popular name. Let's not be overcome by silly political correctness concerns.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the background and historical information regarding the project's name. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• I really don't think the name is a big, or even small, part of the issues that need to be resolved with this project. I wouldn't necessarily object t renaming it, but I don't think there's much point to doing so, and at present there are far more pressing issues that need to be addressed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Even "rescue" is a loaded term in my opinion, implying that articles are in distress or are otherwise being abused by other editors, and desperately need a hero to rescue them lest they die a painful and agonizing death. "Rescue" is over-dramatic. I would be in favor of an even more neutral name, like "WikiProject Deletion Patrol". That really is the purpose of this project anyway, to patrol articles that have been nominated for deletion and make sure we're not deleting something that shouldn't be deleted. —SW— ^comment 21:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• WARNING: Soapbox coming: Yes, its a loaded term! On purpose, and not in a negative way! We save poor articles that might otherwise be deleted. Like poor Candace Gingrich-Jones, a very poorly cited article when it arrived at AfD recently. It was saved and improved; we are preserving human knowledge at AfD. It is quite possible that wikipedia will become the primary first source for all general human knowledge, and if something is deleted, it may, just possibly, remain forgotten for years, or forever. Don't laugh that off! There are many examples of this in human history, and the internet has not fundamentally changed human tendencies. Thus, on my userpage, I have a photo of a carving of Tudhaliya IV. He was a Hittite king, and I chose him because the Hittite Empire was a vastly powerful and important civilization that was completely forgotten for hundreds of years[1]. This is the kind of fire that keeps me running -- I don't want the Tudhaliya IV's of any age to be lost to history; I don't think deletionists are evil as we joke about, or not well-meaning, but I do think they can be dangerous, because knowledge is fragile and easily destroyed by those who don't recognize its importance. When I recently removed a CSD notice from Duo-Tang, a six-year old article on a notable defunct company, I know it probably would have never been recreated, it was too obscure, too unlikely for a young person to think to write about. This is what we should aspire to; it sometime gets lost in the weeds of arguments over seemingly insipid topics, but using the term "rescue" should remind us daily of our noble mission. It is the same mission on which this project was founded and which seems to have been forgotten by so many. end soapbox.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• We already have page Wikipedia:AfD Patrol. It's fairly dead like many/most projects. Warden (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot for a moment why I don't suggest ideas here anymore. Won't happen again. —SW— ^soliloquize 15:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to post anti-Tudhaliya IV treatises anytime, Scotty.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rename WP:NPP as "WikiProject Garbage Incineration" so that it matches the dramah of ARS. —SW— ^prattle 13:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think such a name would encourage an overly deletionist mindset, and would be disrespectful to the editors who contribute new articles. There are plenty of new articles at NPP that do get deleted or redirected, and I believe that most of the deletions and redirects make sense. But most new pages don't get deleted, even among new pages by complete newbies, 27% survive NPP. Garbage incineration sounds more like the sort of term that a certain badsite would use. ϢereSpielChequers 19:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, the above suggestion to rename NPP to "Garbage Collection" was not a serious one. —SW— ^soliloquize 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh no now I'm going to have to reconsider my RFA support. :-) New Page Patrol already destroys too much good content inadvertantly (though my take is its a small percentage of their overall work) to use the word Garbage. Compost maybe, because good things can grow from compost even though it can be kinda smelly.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• If one word should be dropped, it would be "squadron", and I'd do away with membership lists along with it. I think "article rescue" appropriately narrows the focus: the effort is on encyclopedic content, not templates, navboxes, categories, or the like--all are useful adjuncts to encyclopedic material with their own purposes and functions... but they are not articles. As far as the "rescue" bit goes, I don't buy that it's an inappropriate metaphor. If we can get general buy-in that demonstrating source existence without adding sourcing to the article is sufficient grounds for keeping an article, and get admins to reliably close AfD's nominated on the basis of sourcing/notability as keeps regardless of !votes as long as 2 RS'es show up on the AfD page, then I could support renaming it to "Article sourcing" or some such. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Should we get rid of all membership list for all Wikiprojects, or just this one? Dream Focus 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Dropping the word article would risk broadening this to templates, categories, portals and so forth, I'd prefer that we focus this project on articles, and I'm not seeing a lot of criticism of us from people who want us to expand into those other areas. Rescue reflects our focus on saving the articles that do belong here but which are for some reason at risk of deletion. Squadron I've always taken from the naval context rather than the army one. A squadron implies to me a less tightly cohesive group than a team. As the ARS has come under attack from people who accuse it of canvassing, I think it would be healthy to retain the name but reaffirm that we are a squadron and not a team. In particular, we are all interested in rescuing those articles that are worth rescuing, but as autonomous members of a squadron, each of us must decides for ourselves whether each individual article we consider rescuing is appropriate for rescue. ϢereSpielChequers 06:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• How about creating a new and parallel Wikipedia:WikiProject Rescue instead of renaming this one? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason anyone couldn't do that, Ottawa. There have been other ARS type projects in the past, though this one is the only one that has stuck around in any form to date.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I support a rename to "WikiProject Article Rescue". That does not alter the scope of the project, but it does remove the word "squadron" with its militaristic overtones which may encourage a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, as in this New York Times blog which referred to "service on the Article Rescue Squadron, an elite strike force dedicated to fighting “extremist deletion".
  ARS desperately needs to shed the perception that it is some sort of "strike force", and a change of name would help that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The current naming sounds only encourage the perception of a battlefield mentality. Squadron also suggests some sort of unified coordination as it refers to a single operational unit. I would agree to the name Article Rescue. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Any battlefield mentality in AFDs happens whether this one Wikiproject is there or not, always has and always will. Does anyone honestly believe that simply changing this name will do anything to change that? Dream Focus 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And now something I don't believe I have ever said before: I agree 100% with DreamFocus. This is a cosmetic issue with no substance, there are much more pressing issues related to this project that should be discussed instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – After reading the posts, the premise of renaming the project to WikiProject Article rescue seems to be reasonable. However, this is, of course, not a pressing matter, just ideas. I'm somewhat against the notion of eliminating the membership list for the project, since the list has been around for quite some time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why the membership list would be removed, it's pretty standard for a project to have a members list. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support (not including the nomination): 1
• Oppose: 3
• Neutral: 1

Thus far, not looking very likely!

• Support (including user:Jclemens proposal in the discussion, and including my comment above this section, since this name differs from my original proposal): 4
• Oppose: 2

• Rename to WikiProject Deletion Patrol (or something to that effect, since Wikipedia:AfD Patrol already exists)
• Create a new, parallel Wikipedia:WikiProject Rescue
• Rename to: Wikipedia: Super Happy Bunny Rabbit Friendly Helping Association (from User:Dream focus' comment above)
• Don't rename the project and instead discuss the project's scope at: scope? (section) (added by: Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC))

Again, there's absolutely no rush, there's no deadline, and these are all just ideas. = ) Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not list the names of people who support or oppose things? And if you oppose one rename, then do you have to repost and specifically say you oppose the other rename also? Dream Focus 13:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just a basic tally; I didn't want to repeat everything above. It's accurate as of the time of this post. If others chime in above or below, then the numbers can be changed. Also, if you're opposed to any renaming, just say so! : · ) Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose everything.  :-) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your list ignores my proposal, present up the page, to have a discussion about the scope of the project and not worry about the cosmetic issue of what we call it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

See addendum to "Other ideas presented" above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been mentioned here before, but this seems like a great opportunity for those that want to rescue content. You can get behind the paywalls and actually see eight million possible refs in full. There are a limited number of free one year subscriptions up for grabs, and it looks like there may be a full-on watchlist notice on this subject, so now is the time to apply (there are 750 accounts still available but only six days before the deadline to apply) if you want free access to a large library of articles from 6,500 publications from the last 25 years. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I for one missed any other notices about it. --Michig (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like these weren't all snatched up and there is now a "round two" going on. I just started using mine and it's pretty cool. Stuff you would never find from a Google search is right at your fingertips. Seriously, anyone who is active in this project will benefit greAtly from having access to this powerful tool. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I got one from the first round. It's pretty useful, but also pretty limited. It really only works well for Western subjects, especially if they is business related. Silverseren^C 19:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• I really don't recall the details of Wikipedia:Article Incubator (another dead project?), but there are a number of articles languishing in there that might be of interest to folks to improve/rescue for possible return to mainspace.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Click show to see all incubator pages:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to those who work here I feel that the Article Rescue Squadron is misguided. Trying to save articles from deletion ignores the big picture - you know, creating a respectable encyclopaedia. There is usually a reason why articles are nominated for deletion and the process gets rid of rubbish which then incrementally improves WP. There is also a member of the Article Rescue Squadron who goes to great lengths to save articles about all manner of run of the mill companies that do not deserve articles on WP. Also, is the work of the Article Rescue Squadron prolonging Afds making it harder to get a consensus? If that is the case it would slow down the process of improving WP. And there are certainly plenty of other areas of WP that are crying out for editors to give a helping hand.

Hmmm... Do we need a Wikipedia:Article Killer Squadron to balance the work being done here? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You are the one misguided, not us. We aren't trying to create a "respectable encyclopedia", which I basically read to meam one that impresses snotty elitist. We are something that includes things for the common people to learn from, instead of just articles that a certain type of person might enjoy. If you didn't want to read something, there is no realistic chance you'd actually find your way to that article to begin with, so there is nothing gained by mass destroying content some will want to read. Dream Focus 22:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever... And don't take it personally. I am saying the Article Rescue Squadron is misguided. I am not saying that the participants themselves are misguided. Anyway, by "respectable encyclopaedia" I did not want it to mean elitist. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Alan, the ARS exists specifically because of editors like you, who clearly does make BAD nominations on a regular basis. Frankly, I don't even trust your nominations lately because I know some of them will be bad -- maybe only 1-3 out of 10, but to me that's unforgivable when its a clear cut case. When you can't even gain ONE person in support of your nomination, as happens to you often, like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen M. Duncan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Harmon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Souplantation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The King of Torts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Roth and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Bertha (golf club) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene pandala and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rough Justice (novel) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bite Me (novel) and on and on -- all just a sample of MANY CASES where you've batted an ABSOLUTE ZERO, a little introspection would be nice. I've seen your work and, frankly, its GOOD when you CSD or AFD total non-notable crap, I appreciate that. But its not good when you wildly miss. Of course the ARS is going to pick up some folks who have different views than you, its pretty natural. ARS only intervenes in a fraction of AFDs, and everyone can admit there is some error rate in AFD noms. But you are the article killer squadron, already, Alan.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I understood ARS was not meant to be a counter to bad faith nominations but to improve articles on the brink of deletion. It appears in fact from this comment to be a method of getting editors who will vote keep to go to chosen AfDs. I notice some editors here have rates at nearly 100% for voting keep which seems way out of the norm, which suggests there is a lack of thought going into what is kept and what is not. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have noticed Alan Liefting being active at AFD lately and have opposed some of his nominations. It is the nature of the process that some nominations will be opposed - AFD is not speedy deletion and so some cases will be debatable - that's why we have discussions. Even so, many of the discussions languish for lack of participation. The ARS or its counterparts don't seem to make much difference either way. Warden (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we do not need an article killer squadron, the deletionists are all to active already. I hope that ARS members and others will join me at Wikimania 2012 in Washington in July to see how articles can be kept when they are useful, a criteria not respected at present, and to discuss deletions in general. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Doing better than cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Speedy_deletion_Wiki I believe someone finally got a bot going which can automatically and easily copy over an article's entire history for you. I hope that's what I'm seeing. Dream Focus 19:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone brought it to the attention to Jimbo's talk page because of the legal concerns: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.22Speedy_deletion_wiki.22. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If articles are put in the list, and without further improvement to the articles, members of the squadron just turn up and vote keep, and deny that there are any problems: [2], then why are they on this list? The notice on the project page says it's not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking, but that is self-evidently not true. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I read through the article, ample references there already, read the New York Times article linked in the article, and saw nothing that needed improvement. Dream Focus 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think that the article needs no improvement to save it from AfD then you should question why it's on the list, as it doesn't meet the scope of the project: Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Scope. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Some believe it could use some work. The one who tagged it did some work on it. Not everyone who sees the list has to go there just to improve it. Dream Focus 16:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's not resulting in article improvement, then effectively ARS is just a mechanism to canvas (unwittingly or not). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Read the archives, this had been gone over endlessly including in a recent RFC that dragged on for months. We're not a den of evil canvassers, even if the potential exists.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• LOL, and you're complaining about an AFD you started that most people seem to disagree with you on already.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

About 50/50 parity in terms of votes is an unusual definition of "most people". IRWolfie- (talk)

How would you describe voters turning up from ARS, not bothering themselves to improve the article and just voting? It's in the scope of your project that it's not about turning up and voting keep. I think the next step here is an RFC on the existence of ARS. I will start this RfC in the next day or two. Meanwhile, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ethereal_beings is an example of an article that was listed at ARS with zero improvement done to the article throughout the course of the entire AfD even though a number of ARS members showed up to vote. It appears ARS is being used as a canvassing tool to organize keep votes, and not to improve article content as a means to prevent deletion. The previous RfC agreed that some canvassing was going on. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

For all the disparagement that the RFC received, it's worth reading it for an accurate measure of the community. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron. "There is no consensus that The Article Rescue Squadron frequently serves as a vehicle for canvassing". The consensus is that "Any problem lies with a small number of members, not the group as a whole". Trying to push this discussing further, on your own, isn't going to work, and isn't going to be more valid than what happened at the RFC. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wolfie, if you start another RFC, I will nominate you for deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's all about ultimately improving the encyclopedia. Hopefully this Wikiproject can maintain integrity, rather than burn out. If not, and the project is deleted, or means to communicate within the project are incrementally removed, oh well, I suppose. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to improve the project? Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I might wait on this to avoid unnecessary drama. Mostly because I do think the project has a good function despite the canvassing issues. I'm not certain where the balance of harm vs good falls in this. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I know that this is not the location to list an article for rescuing; however, this is an issue that needs addressed soon as the article is up for AfD [3]. The article is Laura Vitale and the creator of the article left a message on my talk page to see if I could assist with cleaning up the article so that it is not deleted. I am part of the ARS but have other projects going on. If anyone is interested, please help out. The discussion is HERE. --Morning277 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:The Core Contest is due to run for a third time from August 1 to August 31 2012.

• Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Winners

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Questia#Apply_here:_Round_1 and at the top it links to the other ones as well. Useful research and referencing tools available now. Dream Focus 02:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

To prevent future posts on the Rescue list that may be vague, perhaps clarification is necessary on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page, where it states (verbatim, as of this post):

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe also add some short comment below <!-- PLEASE POST NEW ENTRIES HERE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST, DIRECTLY BELOW THIS NOTICE. BEGIN ENTRIES WITH A === === HEADER !!! --> might be an idea? Often people don't notice or read the instructions at the top of a noticeboard, project page etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• When was that added to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion ? I'm very surprised to find it there. Dream Focus 22:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It was added (by another user) to replace information regarding the (now nonexistent) rescue template. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

When was the last time an article listed at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list was actually significantly improved by a member of the squadron? (Beyond simple tidy ups etc) IRWolfie- (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It happens when there is something that can be added. In the recent article you are referring to, I read through the information and added to the article [1] to clarify what the person actually said, but saw nothing else I could add to it. I then went and commented in the AFD after that. There are times when a short stub is expanded into a full article by members of the ARS. Dream Focus 13:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

that is my question, when is the last time that occurred. I've been watching the list for a while and I've not seen it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Grabbing a recently saved one from the list, you can look through the history and see all the edits made after it was tagged for Rescue. [4] Go through older entries and look around if you want to find more. You can seek out the information yourself if you don't believe me, I see no reason to waste time proving it to you by making a long list of examples. Dream Focus 14:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are the specific changes in that case: [1][2]. Seems like mostly just a tidy up; is the squadron just for tidying up articles? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A poor example, and a poor article. See Milowent's comments below for some better ones. pablo 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• An actual rescue does happen from time to time, rewrite, valid references from reliable sources added etc. But mainly not; depends on the users who spot it. Some are diligent and thorough and understand what they are doing, others are happy to be part of a votefarm. pablo 15:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Which regular member of the ARS do you see acting as part of a "votefarm"? Which don't regularly add content to articles, not just those nominated for deletion, but others? Dream Focus 17:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not the question I was answering. Milowent (for example) has many "rescues" to his credit. Other self-proclaimed "rescuers" do not. pablo 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wolfie probably doesn't notice that many times the Rescue squadron politely hints than an article is not worth saving, and it gets deleted. If that doesn't help an editor to realize an article has no chance, and to accept it better, i don't know what else does. There have been a number of those lately. I've been mostly writing/improving non-AfD articles lately. The last rescue I did that was listed on ARS (as opposed to ones I do myself and don't bother listing) was Kirby Bliss Blanton, which was kept of course. I also worked on I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! which was only a prod, albeit a pathetic one. Also handled Deford, Michigan.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• IRWolfie, I try to check in here as an outsider (skeptical-in-practice/supportive-in-principle) now and then. There was an RFC on this. The consensus was that "ARS is used for canvassing, but not frequently", "Any problem lies with a small number of members, not the group as a whole", and "The project is designed to improve articles, not participate in AfDs, and members who forget this should be reminded". If you think there's a problem with an individual member in an individual rescue request, the first step would be to leave a comment on their user page. I would expect complete civility in response, and if you didn't get it, then you should start building a case against that individual editor. But as far as I'm concerned, criticizing the whole system of article rescue is counter productive and baseless at this moment in time. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I completely rewrote the article busy work two days ago. When was the last time that User:IRWolfie- did some fact checking? His comments here seem to provoked by this AFD. In that case, I browsed around and found a relevant article which should help the discussion along, being quite similar in content and providing many leads. User:IRWolfie- claimed that this "has little bearing on this article" which seems to be an outrageous falsehood. Tsk. Warden (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• One of the most pleasant rescue operations this year was the risk of ruin AfD. The Colonel and Dream intervened with typically spot on analyses, and a few hours later the nominator withdrew, closing the discussion as a unanimous keep. In the closing statement he singled out the impossibly cool Dream Focus to thank him for his contribution.

Sadly Deletionists are not always so receptive to reason. In this AfD for example, good Laura Hale made by far and away the most impressive evidence based case for keep that Ive ever seen - you'd need to expand the hats to see her massive and well presented tables analysing the coverage in reliable sources - but all she got for her herculean labours was mockery.

Often no amount of quality sources will appease delete voters, they remain determined to destroy, presumably as they worry elite professors will consider their target embarrassing. For this and other reasons, voting keep without taking the time to add sources has historically been the most efficient way to maximise the number of articles one rescues. Sadly it looks like that is a thing of the past, the Squad's glory days seem to be over. These days the only safe way for individuals to avoid attack is to only participate in a small number of AfDs each month. On the bright side, other more powerful forces for inclusion and reason will emerge in time, and the Squad's legacy will last for as long as there is an internet. Huh, in the eternal realm, as with all that is wrought with Love, the Squad's work will endure for ever. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the Risk of ruin article: I added several sources to it, and an inline citation. Diffs: [5], [6], [7], [8], in addition to other edits to improve the layout and prose of the article. After all, topic notability is inherent upon coverage in reliable sources. Also, I did not !vote at the article's AfD discussion. I've also done significant work on the Busy work article, some prior to the article being listed on this project's rescue list, and some after. When was the last time this WikiProject received accolades for working to retain an article nominated for deletion about a topic that is actually notable? Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't vote in the AfD, and you did improve the article, but neither warden nor dream edited the article and just voted. This seems consistent with ARS being used as a canvassing tool. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wolfie, Dream did in fact make a minor formatting improvement, but you’re basically correct. It was his comment in the AfD that seemned to most directly lead to the unaminous keep. North on the other hand was like a model rescuer, at least going by the definition our "neautral" crtitics seem to hold. Still, its undeniable that their efforts had no effect on the outcome of that particular AfD, as it was closed several hours before their first improvement.

• User:IRWolfie- has got it backwards. I was the editor that added it to the rescue list after posting my !vote. I was mainly tickled by the analogy of the topic with the process of deletion (in which an article is terminally ruined). It seemed like a quick win and so it proved. I don't recall why I didn't edit it myself but suppose I was too busy. As the nominator was persuaded to withdraw quite quickly without any acrimony, this seems to be a model rescue. The encyclopedia has clearly benefited from our action and so all's well that ends well. Warden (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

North, I did think of you after writing that comment, more due to the second half of my post, as I thought it might seem wrong to be so downbeat considering we've been blessed with such inspirational recent arrivals as your good self. I guess one needs to have experienced how good we had it back in 2008 and 2009 to appreciate why it feels like we've fallen from grace.

As your currently one of our most active editors you're probably best place to answer your own question, but I'd guess it might have been months since the Squad's work has been suitably recognised. Back in the day, we received accolades left right and centre, and were hailed as heros in national newspapers, in constrast to the criticisms journalists had for deletionists Its like the old coldplay song We used to role the dice, see the fear in our enemies eyes. Listen as the crowds would cry, Le vieux roi est mort. Viva Le Grand Roi! Now deletionist hordes wait, for our heads on a silver plate. It might seem ridiculous to think anyone would fear the rescue squad, as we're one of the least vindictive and intolerant groups you'd ever find. But they did. Even thumperward, not an editor given to flights of fancy, once suggested an admin should think twice before messing with us, due to what had happened to our former arch critic, A Man In Black. It started to go pear in early 2010, deletionists began rampaging through our BLPs, mass deleting thousands. Several high profile squad members opposed this, but Jimbo weighed in for the deletionists. In April of that year, Sue Gardner came to a London meetup, so I thought Id attend to see if the Foundation would be able to help the Squad perform its vital work. You couldn’t hope for a more inclusive, friendly and pleasant person than Sue, she'd make the perfect Squad member, but she said the Foundation couldnt intervene in content issues for legal reasons. An even more shocking incident occurred when we came to do formal introductions. I proudly announced "My name is Feyd, and Im here to represent the mighty Article Resuce Squad." I was using a slightly theatrical tone of voice as I obviously expected spontaneous applause, maybe even an awed gasp from one of the females present. Instead, everyone booed with the sole exception of Sue herself, and several, including an Arbirtrator, cracked jokes about me being an arse! Such a humbling experience; Id assumed the Squad was highly regarded by all but the vocal minority of deletionists. Things kept getting worse. The next month, the rescue titan Anobody was perma banned after being stabbed in the back on ANI by a former Squad member. A few months on, and our defacto leader Benji was also banned. The unstoppable MQS started to work more on movies and less on rescues. DGG is now rarely seen in our areas. The master strategist Ikip seems to have left Wikipedia completely. There's been a rumour he's now helping FlyingToaster to ensure Obama is re-elected, so perhaps thats a good thing.

I could go on and on, but I hope this gives an indication of how far the Squad has fallen since its glory days, and why even though we still have a good few excellent members, its hard to be optimistic about the Squads future. But please dont think your phenomenal work isnt appreciated. Huh, talking of accolades, its a shame you dont store all your barnstars on one page. Even though you've only been here a year, I've a feeling you might be the most decorated wikipedian ever! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't recall this golden age of which you speak. Anyway, my impression is that the whole process of AFD is moribund as most editors can't be bothered with it and so the discussions are poorly attended. All projects and initiatives on Wikipedia seem to end up like this - Articles for Creation and Incubation seem dead or dying too. The good news is that the number of articles seems to steadily climb at about 1000/day and so what happens here is just a drop in the ocean. Warden (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Its all a matter of perspective I guess. Perhaps the real golden age was in the early naughties when there wasnt even a need for a rescue Squad. Ive read reports that almost all interesting and useful articles were welcomed, even if they lacked a single source. 1000 a day is most gratifying, but we need a far faster rate if we're to catch up with all the worlds knowledge. They say Leibniz was the last man to have read every source ever written. Now he'd not be able to read in a lifetime what the world produces in a day! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the examples you give are the opposite of what the ARS should be doing. It should not be a tool for keep voters to organise to vote at AfDs. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly not all active members share your perspective on what we should be doing. Though sadly youre probably right, in the sense that if we want to avoid attack, we should minimise the number of times we vote without making substantial improvements. Perhaps it would be safer still to follow North's example. Though not everyone has the saint like forbearance to spend hours researching and improving an article, while knowing theres only a tiny chance deletionists will be impressed enough to change their minds. It just seems so asymmetric! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Feyd: actually I do list awards I've received on one page. I tend to downplay it, to avoid seeming a braggart. Here it is: User:Northamerica1000/Awards. Interesting how those with an interest in retaining articles about topics that are often actually notable are often admonished, while those that hastily nominate notable topics for deletion, often due to failing to perform a simple source search prior to doing so (See section D of WP:BEFORE), don't seem to receive the same criticism whatsoever. Perhaps it's all about maintaining an impetus for article deletion on Wikipedia through sheer numbers. If there's always articles nominated for deletion, some of which are actually about notable topics, it creates and maintains a status quo to continue doing so — for there to always be a queue of articles headed for removal, sometimes regardless of the actual notability of some topics.

At this time, I've helped to retain many articles that were too-hastily nominated, apparently lacking the most basic of source searching prior to nomination. Other times people base topic notability upon subjective personal assessments of it, rather than the actual notability guidelines, and also don't bother to do a basic source search. Furthermore, deletion nominations are often based upon the appearance of articles and only sources (or lack thereof) within them, rather than the availability of sources (See WP:NRVE). All of these occurrences are unfortunately becoming a constant at Articles for deletion. Perhaps WP:BEFORE should be emphasized more. Conversely, there are some topics that just don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so it does make sense that those should be removed to maintain the integrity of the overall content within the encyclopedia. At any rate, this Wikiproject is just one aspect of the diverse variety of projects and activities that people can participate upon in Wikipedia. —Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an impressive collection, but I thought youd have more than that, you always seem to have new ones on your talk every time I look. Id not thought about AfD like that, but you may well be right. Certainly you are about Before. Unfortunately its very hard to make any sort of change to our policy pages, especially a sensible one. I once started a centralized discussion to get GNG demoted to an essay, but it was a total waste of time. If you can get on BebbleBrox's good side, he might be able to help. He recently used most impressive tactics to push through the pending changes RfC. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Feyd: Your own comment is indicitave of one of the perceived problems with this project. You speak of "deletionists" as if they are some group of boogeymen whom you are at war with. This battleground mentality is the basis of many users perception of this projet as a "stop anything from being deleted at all costs" group and not a legitimate attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Of course there are some fine people here who actually do improve articles as opposed to just participating in this perceived ideological struggle, but attitudes like this one overshadow and discredit their efforts. The sooner this battlefield mentality is rooted out of this project the sooner the public perception of it will improve. (and in your particular case, your repeated atyempts to hold up the lying, backstabbing, banned suckpupeteer GrandRoi/Anobody as some sort of martyred saint completely discredit anything else you have to say) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My credibility's bomb proof round here chum. I guess when you write 'backstabbing', youre using the word neutrally , just to mean a non frontal attack? In England we tend to reserve the word for despicable traitors. Anobody was far too loyal ever to stab a friend in the back. And he doesn't suck! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer the original question in two ways: 1) People who are not "members", like me, rescue articles all the time, and 2) those who don't want to attract a drama-fest actually enjoy improving articles without the list. Wish I had more time to do that, but I don't. I wish other people had time to work on things that I nominate for cleanup, but they tend not to either. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I never really used the rescue list and I haven't really been involved in AfDs all that much lately at all. I got tired of having to deal with deletionists. I mean, Diwon is my latest one and that was back in May. And I made these improvements. Silverseren^C 04:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Since this project is focused on the retention of articles about notable topics, posting this similar WikiProject for people's perusal:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention

— Check it out! Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Racism in the LGBT community I think needs a rescue what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwanyewest (talk • contribs) 01:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Should links to deletion reviews be listed on the rescue list for articles that were previously posted to the rescue list? Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I posted a link to a deletion review in a recent rescue list post, and some editors expressed opposition to this. Per these concerns, I removed the link from my post. Provision of the link was a procedural courtesy post, and the context of its placement was neutrally-worded. However, since some editors have expressed concern about this type of linking, I'll abstain from doing so in the future, unless consensus is determined to be otherwise regarding this matter. Even if consensus is to be deemed otherwise, I may abstain from doing so anyway. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• There should be a bot to automatically notify everyone who participated in an AFD if there is a deletion review or renomination. Unfortunately they don't have that yet. Obviously when an AFD has ended, instead of just listing how it ended, we should have a note if it went to deletion review, as I did [9] before you made a separate post for it. Don't let the opinions of a few that find an excuse to complain constantly about the squadron anyway, get to you. Haters are gonna hate, and whiners going to whine, just how it is. Dream Focus 12:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Check out how both food-related articles for deletion and their AfD results are listed at WikiProject Food and drink in its Article alerts section: Diff page here (scroll down). Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think linking to DRVs is or should be in the ARS's purview. pbp 13:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Another matter, of course, is Freedom of information on the internet. Should one Wikiproject, such as WikiProject Food and drink, be "allowed" to list deletion-related links on their page, but not another? Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • AfD results and DRV discussions are two different things... pbp 13:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) (Note: I revised my comment above concurrently with when the above post was being posted.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Freedom of information"? North, you're a strange dude. You are certainly free to do this from a legal standpoint, but we aren't talking about a legal issue. It is about whether a link to a DRV discussion could possibly have any function other than to canvass for endorse votes, which is against the policy of this private institution.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• If you want to make an accusation, do it in the proper area. No sense arguing back and forth here all day when neither side has any chance of convincing the other of their point of view. Dream Focus 15:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I vote against the mindless creep of bureaucracy and de-facto institution of censorship sought by Cheese Jihadists. Its clear in this DRV that certain editors are turning it into AfD Round 2, which is forbidden. Thus, the listing to avoid that perversion of the Project is completely appropriate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Uh, it seems there is a subtext to this conversation that is not immediately apparent. (WTF is a "cheese jihadist"?) Being unaware of what the underlying subtext is, all I have to say is that DRVs are not related to article rescue and listing them will add to the perception that this project's purpose includes canvassing. DRV is, as I am sure I don't need to remind anyone here, for challenging the way an admin chose to close a particular discussion. It has nothing to do with the actual content of the article and there is nothing the normal, sanctioned activities of ARS can do to influence the outcome. DRV is for correcting administrative error, not for actually establishing whether or not a subject is notable. Clearly outside the scope of a content related project such as this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• It was prompted by an AfD on pizza cheese. Around half of the editors supported a merge or redirect and felt the sourcing being provided did not establish "pizza cheese" as sufficiently independent from related subjects such as mozzarella or pizza. One issue raised in the DRV is the way the closing admin addressed, or failed to address, those arguments about the problems with sources provided to support having an independent article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• The pizza cheese article was listed for attention here when it was at AFD and so it is quite reasonable to provide updates as to what has happened to it, especially when this directly relates to the AFD discussion, as DRV clearly does. DRV often recapitulates and explores the arguments presented at AFD and the ARS is especially well-qualified to participate as its members are naturally very familiar with the relevant policies and precedents. We all have a variety of interests and abilities to bring to any discussion. It's only the cheese which stands alone. Warden (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

So in essence you are saying that the ARS list is for notifying members about AfD and DRV discussions? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• You say that like it's a bad thing. AFD is moribund because hardly anyone seems to comment on discussions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawish, for example, which has been listed twice without attracting any comment. The pizza cheese case seems mainly to be an example of Parkinson's Law of Triviality but, insofar as it is getting a good hearing, that's a good thing. Warden (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• So, and sorry for getting stuck on this, but is the ridiculous comment above about cheese jihadists a joke, or a perfect example of the battleground mentality that has so damaged this project's reputation? That's the problem with extremeism, the real thing is sometimes hard to distinguish from a parody. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is unwise to joke about such matters as the guardians of national security are notoriously lacking in a sense of humour. See Homeland Security breaks up cheese-smuggling ring. Warden (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Tell me about it. A few years ago I was coming back in to Alaska at Port Alcan and they confiscated the roast beef I had bought for lunch because Canadian beef might have mad cow disease. But they did offer to let me turn around back into Canada and have lunch and then come back through. Of course if the meat was contaminated with mad cow disease I would then have been an infected carrier of it. When we set up camp that night I realized we also had some beef hot dogs we had purchased in Canada. I pulled them out of the cooler and informed my wife that we were now international smugglers. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and ARS isn't like other WikiProjects. Other WikiProjects work on a specific content area, which includes creating articles, cleaning up articles, deleting articles, setting content policy, and resolving disputes around those topic areas. ARS is just different in that they're given far broader legitimacy over a wider range of content, but that's balanced with the narrow task of adding sources to articles that are at risk of deletion. DRVs aren't resolved by adding sources. So what would ARS be doing there? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. DRV is not for content issues, which is supposed to be the focus of this project. It is a discussion of a particular administrator and how they closed a particular discussion. There is no way to "rescue" anything at DRV, except in the extremely unlikely event that there are reliable sources that discuss the closing of the AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. The ARS's sole stated purpose is to improve articles that are currently subject to AFDs. It cannot improve a deleted article, and postings about deletion reviews are outside its remit - any such posting can clearly only be canvassing. If anyone wishes to suggest otherwise, they first need to get the approval of the wider Wikipedia community to extend this project beyond its stated objectives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, this is false. For example, I attended a DRV just today that was ostensibly all about the sources for the article. All deletion-related activities are fair game for the ARS because it is our purpose to rescue articles threatened by deletion. If an article under discussion at DRV were to be improved by a prodigious display of editing per WP:HEY then there would no doubt be a great burst of applause and all concerned would agree that the article should be retained. The encyclopedia would benefit thereby and that's what matters. Warden (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• If other wikiprojects can take articles they had listed at AFD and list when they are at DRV, there is no reason why this wikiproject would be any different. I believe the note I made in the result box of the original listing, was sufficient though. Dream Focus 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• You are both wrong. In fact Colonel Warden is not merely wrong, but writing complete nonsense. If an article is under discussion at DRV it cannot be 'improved' because it doesn't exist as an article. If anyone posts notifications of DRVs here I will report the matter as the self-evident canvassing it is. If you wish to have the remit of ARS extended to participation in DRVs, then make the proper moves to do so, so the wider community can decide if it is appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump is quite mistaken. Articles are often taken to DRV to try to reverse or amend a Keep or Merge result and so the article is available for editing. In cases where the article has been deleted, it is sometimes restored so that editors may see it. And sometimes, one may simply point to sources or relevant content which helps to settle the matter without actually performing a corresponding edit. And it really is quite outrageous for editors such as AndyTheGrump to complain as they themselves seem to post all over the place when agitating about their latest bête of noire. Please see WP:SAUCE. Warden (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• I understand that a lot of participants here are passionate about saving anything they can from deletion, but if you are at all concerned about the actual project, I would suggest that listing DRVs be done only in exceptional circumstances where there is a demonstrable link to a "rescuing" issue. Otherwise, as you can already see, it will be perceived as canvassing. There is clearly disagreement about whether, as a matter of policy, it is canvassing but the broader issue is that we all know it will be seen as that, regardless of what other projects do. The primary reason for that is that this project is unique in that in it is not focused on a single area of content. Not every AFD that comes down the pike is subject to ARS attention because in many cases the nomination is perfectly in line with our current content guidelines and anyone can see that it will be deleted. It has never been the stated purpose of ARS to argue in every single AFD. The proportion of DRVs where such attention is appropriate is very low indeed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beeble that the % of DrVs that would conceivably merit ARS attention are very few. ARS is dedicated to the admittedly small percentage of AFDs, but not insignificant aggregate number of AfDs, where rescue is a possibility. Its disturbing when one finds nominations like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meto Jovanovski, because sometimes these discussions get missed and coverage of notable topics simply disappears.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• It still might not be such a great idea to tell people how to think prior to posting to a board on Wikipedia. Free speech usually wins over speech rules. It sets a poor precedent to limit speech, like "You can post here, but you can only word your post a certain way." Why not just correct things as they may occur, rather than setting ground rules that censor speech from the start? Of course, it's functional to set some precedent here, but just don't expect every Wikipedia editor to read this discussion thread in advance prior to making a post to the "rescue list," and then adhere to any consensus that may occur here. It's wholly unrealistic, because of the nature of Wikipedia being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about what is and is not appropriate for a list on this project, and you keep trying to drag all this other stuff into it. This has nothing at all to do with the Freedom of Information Act or the free speech. It is perfectly normal for any project here to discuss the limits of its own scope, it is ridiculous overblown hyperbole to suggest that this is an attempt at censorship. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and furthermore it's certainly functional for projects to discuss their scope, so we're in some agreement here. However, dismissal of some of my other points as "ridiculous" is a more of an "overblown hyperbole" than the actual statements. However, this being Wikipedia, perhaps matters regarding Freedom of information aren't as significant or important, compared to their gravitas in the "real world." Therefore, I won't go on and on about it. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

When there are two sides to a disagrement, both sides try to shape the parameters and tone of the debate. Repetition is often one of the most important ways one side can set the tone and parameters. I can't count the number of times that I have seen a good wikipedia editor's reputation destroyed by a group of editors repeatedly saying the same dubious claims over and over and over. Over time, these dubious claims becomes conventional wisdom, and people new to the disagreement will ignorantly take up these repeated dubious claims.

It is essential that these shameless lies about many Article Rescue Squadron members "battleground mentality" be addressed head on, before this smear become conventional wisdom embraced by most Wikipedians. Every time this lie is repeated, ARS members need to step up and remind the community that the real "battleground mentality" is from those editors who destroy other peoples contributions, alienating potentially new and veteran editors, which is a detriment of the project as a whole.

It is shamelessly misleading to the point of being Orwellian that those who have consistently shown they have no respect for other editor's good faith contributions claim ARS members have a "battleground mentality". Okip 15:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What? Is this about any particular issue, or is this just a general rant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's good to hear from Okip again - how's it going? I'm not quite sure what you're referring to either but there's usually no shortage of examples. Good reading as consolation is Feynman's What Do You Care What Other People Think?, which teaches the value of independent thinking; and Kipling's If—, which teaches the stiff upper lip:

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too:

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated don’t give way to hating,

And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;

Warden (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more. Every time someone says the ARS has a battleground mentality, get right up in their face and let them know who the real evildoers are! Don't stop until every last person who claims there is a a battleground mentality here learns this lesson! That'll show 'em. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Beeblebrox.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Milo, I think Beebs was being sarcastic. Okip's comment was blatantly demonstrating the battleground mentality it denies exists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think Milo was being sarcastic too, you Pizza Cheese Jihadist heathen!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the ARS 'regulars' are understandably touchy about the idea of the battleground mentality. But as Beeblebrox seems to imply above, the answer is not to react in a relentless (battleground-ish) way, but to simply and quietly say, "I'm here to save good content." -- Avanu (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)