Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 → Archive 55

James Bibby

I need some help and advice on the James Bibby article. Another editor has nominated it for deletion, and has tagged the article as unsourced. I have found and added references, but the other editor keeps removing my references, and then restoring the "unsourced" tag. I do not want to edit war. Will someone please look at the article. I think that it is notable, and references can be found. The article is worth rescuing. Andy14and16 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Rescuing articles is a worthy clause, but "rescuing" them with unreliable sources is counter-productive. You haven't offered any justification of the reliability of any of the "sources" you have introduced to the article or relied on in the AFD, and not responded to the evidence that each and every one of them is unreliable. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this discussion and checked out the result (delete) and a cache version of the article. Sadly, it doesn't look like we could have done much more to rescue this one, the sources were just too marginal for the crowd.--Milowent (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

This article has been nominated for deletion. I have placed a rescue banner at the article itself but would also like to include it in any list the ARS has for general distribution to its members. I'm not very good with tools (templates, etc). Any assistance would be appreciated.--Buster7 (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Beware, Princess Elizabeth

This one is up for deletion, and will likely be merged. I'm not sure if it's notable, but flagged it for rescue. I've found some sources, all pretty weak, thought I'd mention it here to see if anyone has any ideas or opinions on it. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jog (moped)

This is currently at AfD. I'd say that it was notable enough to sustain an article and probably a good candidate for you guys to rescue. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AN/I thread which could be of interest

Pretty sad in my opinion. [1]. --Cyclopiatalk 16:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I added my 2 cents. At least this group's membership haven't been called "ARSeholes" yet, though its pretty close. Your comparison of ARS to Wikipedia Review was a good one. The fact is, some articles really do cry out for deletion, and others cry out for rescue. No one mentions all the articles that get improved and rescued when these discussions come up.--Milowent (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, Silverseren has stirred things up now!--Milowent (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Yay! :P SilverserenC 19:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing the Article Rescue Squadron about an RfC in which their name is being smeared? Truly reprehensible! NOW where can the GOOD editors go to bitch and moan in peace? I mean REALLY-- attempting to improve articles is truly DESPICABLE! Civility should be set aside when addressing such editors! You lot ought to be ASHAMED!!! Dekkappai (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean, just think about all the decent editors who come to Wikipedia for the real reason the project exists: to chat, to make up rules on what should be excluded, to debate, and to play online grab-ass. PLEASE consider their feelings. All these articles you're writing and saving are like a slap in the face to them! Hey, maybe we can should write a rule proclaiming expanding and sourcing an article which is up for deletion as an act of "Incivility". Yeah, that sounds good. Now pardon me while I do some searches on subjects I don't want to read about and don't think anyone else should either. Harrumph! Dekkappai (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
lol.--Milowent (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing from ARS

It's not like I've been active on the ARS talk page, but if anyone cares, I'm withdrawing from the Article Rescue Squadron as I am concerned that the project presents itself poorly on Wikipedia, takes insufficient care to ensure its work is in line with community consensus policy, and has let itself be diverted from the core business of building a better encyclopedia. I nevertheless hope to continue debating with you on AfDs and I continue to believe that each AfD should be scrutinised on its merits and care should be taken to avoid the deletion of perfectly worthwhile article topics. Thanks everyone. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • No worries, DFW, keep up your good work on the project. Membership is just a badge, and you don't need no stinkin' badges to do good work. The slanders against ARS are pitiful in my opinion, but in the end nothing save articles like actually working on articles to improve them.--Milowent (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks Milowent. For what it's worth, I think the issue largely arises from this: that the newer members of ARS are the most enthusiastic and most likely to be visible as ARS members, but don't have the expertise necessary to make policy-supported arguments and use the templates and other tools appropriately. Whereas the good members of ARS (yourself included) know that the best way to save an article is to just dive in and improve it, and then cite significant coverage in reliable independent sources at the AfD. There's really no part of that process that lends itself to advertising the ARS. The results is that good rescues are done by individuals but bad rescues are done by the project. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but getting rid of the highly-visible templates is probably the first step, and undertaking outreach to make the community aware of your best work is probably the second. It would probably also help to foster a community of policy at the talk page here rather than a community of outrage; there's always the temptation to call a deletion nomination "ridiculous" or "outrageous", and often that's justified, but when it's not followed up by the policy reasons supporting that outrage it leads to sloppy argument and a contempt for opposing viewpoints. Anyway, as I said, best of luck! - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      • If I might be serious for a moment. I've never joined the Squadron myself, DFW, though I think it's a great idea, and I follow the on-going soap-operas related to it... I find intentionally diving into AfDs to be too hard on my nerves, so I just go into them when they come knocking, and of course, we individual editors, are never prevented from improving and saving articles ourselves. I think one unfortunate result of an organization of editors dedicated to this is that it makes an easy target for demonization (see the above RfC), though this is not the fault of the people here. Dekkappai (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I never "joined". There's no real reason to. Anyone can see what's there to be rescued and do some source addition. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
          • I think it's a shame that DustFormsWords feels a need to leave. I think the point about the templates is a good one--it sometimes appears as if there's a mentality of "we're here to save the day!" when the goal is to have good article--the note in small text in the AFD article is probably sufficient since the AFS template takes interested parties to the AFD. And I think we might do better if we put more effort into long term followup on the articles that are rescued. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

KGB Archiver

This article was recently subject to an AfD, which was subsequently withdrawn. However, in the month since that happened, none of the sources found during the process of the AfD have been added to the article. This is definitely within ARS's remit, so if anyone fancies an easy job it's there for the taking. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm done adding the references in. If anyone wants to expand the information further with what's in them, go ahead. I don't know much about this stuff, so i'm going to stay away from trying to content edit, i'd probably mangle it badly. :P SilverserenC 01:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you should be bold and dive right in, it's a good way to learn, and we can help clean up if you mangle anything. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
What I meant was that I know next to nothing about computer software. I only vaguely understand what this KGB Archiver does, which is something to do with uncompressing and compressing ZIP files, right? I do not have the expertise or even the general amateur knowledge for the subject. SilverserenC 01:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
(; Don't let that stop you. I know about software, why don't you have a go and I'll take a look--you'll probably do better than you think. In one sense it's pretty easy since if you don't know the topic, you're completely reliant on the sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that's the most I can do. I found some other sources as well and added them. How does it look? SilverserenC 10:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I just took a quick look, I think it looks quite good, I'll come back in the next day or so and make a pass. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. Many thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful

This discussion. Admins again dissing us. You know, I wish other people would realize that all of the ARS are individual editors and that we do have rather differing opinions on things. SilverserenC 20:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is one troll, probably a certain deletionist who has done this crap before in the past, just stirring up trouble. Nothing to do with the rest of us. Dream Focus 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, generally the font is slightly different when you stack the deck with "keep" !votes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC) this is vaguely a joke but IMHO has an element of truth in it.

(edit conflict) So calling you and Dream Focus ARS members is dissing you? Maybe I missed something. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
When its coming from the same users who previously did so and when there was no reason to bring the ARS up? Yes. SilverserenC 21:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see my name in what was linked to at all. But yeah, certain editors are constantly trash talking the ARS. Dream Focus 21:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I know there are plenty of editors who trash the ARS, I just don't think that the mere mention of it is "dissing". Oh well. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Articles are kept based on discussion, not vote staking. And most articles nominated are saved simply by spending two seconds clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and finding sources, instead of just doing drive by delete votes everywhere where references aren't already in the article. Dream Focus 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
And, as I have said time and again, I go into an article to improve it. The only time I just vote keep is when the article is already well referenced and formed. So please keep your insinuations to yourself. SilverserenC 21:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Well said Silver, goes for many of us. And those bare votes can be crucial. There have been times where admins have vote counted citing an over whelming majority voting to delete even when editors have spent hours integrating in top line university press sources directly on the subject. Sometimes the numerical balance of votes is irrelevent, but sometimes it seems to be the decisive factor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles are kept based on discussion, not vote staking come on, let's get real, most Admins will buckle if they see long-term editors voting keep regardless of the strength of the argument. Anyone who has been a couple of years knows that vote-stacking *does* work - as long as it's done by established editors. Is the Article Canvass Squadron the only place this happens? of course not. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's all remain polite. I'll probably catch some grief for this, but I'll make the following observations anyway:

  • I'm not very happy with the wall of fame--to my mind, it gives the impression that the primary goal here is to prevent deletions of articles, rather than improve them. Saving articles means not only providing enough references to result in a keep, but also in bringing it to a good standard. The banner is a bit the same, if it were up me, I'd get rid of both.
  • I think it would be good to start a page of "Adopted articles", ones which have been shown to be notable, but which have not yet been brought up to a good quality level, the idea being to promote followup, as we did with the KGB Archiver article. I think that was a good example of how we can work together as a team.

Whatever people think, it would be good to take this moment as an opportunity to reflect upon how we might improve our work here. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone in the squad is here to imporve the encylopedia, though like any diverse group we have our own different ideas. Sometimes its fruitless to spend hours improving an article if its going to be deleted due to an "overwhelming number" of delete votes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
"the primary goal here is to prevent deletions of articles, rather than improve them" — That's been clear for years. The KGB Archiver discussion just below is an excellent example. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

99% of Wikipedia's millions of articles are of less than good quality. We do not have the resources to make a significant impact on this. As we have limited resources, we must perforce work efficiently. The Pareto principle (or 80:20 rule) indicates that we will do most good by raising articles from the poor state in which deletion is contemplated up to a level at which they are secure from this. Typically this is done just by adding a couple of good sources which show the merit of the topic and provide more information. I tend to lose interest at that point because further work is just a matter of recapitulating what's in the sources and this adds little value. As one tries to raise the quality of the article, one increasingly gets bogged down in unproductive disputes over minor differences of content and style. So, I plan to continue to work on the low-hanging fruit and will only go further for topics of particular personal interest. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That would depend entirely on what you think a good outcome is, yes? And for what it's worth, in my experience most of the articles that through AFD don't have anyone actively working on them, and, as in the case of the KGB Archiver article, there's essentially no discussion over style or content if you make a pass to improve it. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Your proposal above seemed to be to encourage teamwork - having multiple editors working upon the same article to to raise its quality. But, as soon as you do this, you will get the problem of two cooks in one kitchen and disputes will tend to arise. And if just one editor focusses upon an article for a while, you tend to get the similar problem of ownership. But I don't want to be too negative. If there should seem to be a case where teamwork would be especially efficacious then feel free to invite me. But be careful what you wish for .... :) Colonel Warden (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I think you and I would get along fine in a tag team--I think we're both thick skinned enough to handle it. But if you really wanted some fun we could invite OrangeMike as well. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Our Colonel is near the mark; we do not have the resources [clueful editors] to properly maintain Wikipedia's millions of articles in anything above a poor state. Please stop endlessly inflating the project with inappropriate subtopics of the important topics and fighting tooth and nail to keep everything. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a rescue "squadron", not an improvement "squadron". Improvement of already notable articles belongs to Wikiprojects, and rightly so, since they collect a focused group of editors. Here my understanding is that of performing a more basic task: preventing notable and reasonable stuff from being deleted only because it is in a precarious state. This doesn't mean you're wrong in general, Nuujinn, quite the contrary: what you say is simply what WP should be everyday. But that is not the focus of this group. --Cyclopiatalk 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. But I think that so long as this group focuses solely on that one aspect, it will be subject to criticism that it's really just a canvassing group of inclusionists. I don't think that's true, myself, since as Silver points out, any group is just a collection of individuals with their own interests and approaches.
And to be clear, I'm not talking about improvement of already notable articles, I'm talking about trying to shepherd articles that have rescued, much as animal rescue does. But if the folks here aren't interested in getting involved in article improvement, then I would suggest that if we rescue an article that needs additional work, what might be appropriate would be to put a copyedit template ({{Copyedit}}), at least that way the guild of copy editors will take a look at it. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Animal rescue is an apt metaphor, I suspect. Personally, I'd just as soon euthanize all abandoned animals and redirect the funds towards helping human beings, because that's my value system. But I don't have that say, because the folks who donate to animal rescue have the right to invest their money in line with their belief system, not mine. If I were to sit around and constantly and loudly complain that spaying dogs and cats was stealing food from orphan children, then I'd sound a lot more like the critics of the ARS. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I do do content work, it's just that I enjoy adding references far more than writing material. And since the problem in most AfDs are that references are lacking, I work there, so I get two things done at once, I save an article and also improve it with references. I mean, I spent a considerable amount of time yesterday working on referencing Warrior, when it had no references at all when I began doing so. SilverserenC 23:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Opinion

What do you guys think of the request to remove a section of WP:CORP that contradicts WP:GNG and basically says that local sources mean nothing? I'm unsure whether the people against it are correct or are just deletionists, so I'd love the Article Rescue Squadron's opinion on it. Click here to view the debate. PÆon (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is good reason for WP:CORP to say this. WP:CORP has its own specific considerations - to avoid promotionalism. Local sources about businesses tend to be promotional. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully my comment was able to make them understand. SilverserenC 20:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
What's the history behind the phrase "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." in WP:CORP, I don't recall seeing that alluded to until recently. Perhaps its been there but I didn't realize it. In AfD practice, I think local sources get discounted a bit, especially in the case of small or weekly-alternative newspapers. But they do carry some weight with editors, and is an "indication of notability," though not dispositive.--Milowent (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinions at the actual discussion, and not just here, would also be appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I for one am very happy to have been lead to this page. If my article needs help, then I will do what I can. Thank you for the tips, and I will comply. Herosrus (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Muir Skate

This article is at the end of it's AfD and it's not looking very good. It has three local sources, one national source (snippet), and one international source, but that isn't enough to the many deletionists attacking it. It seems like an easy save to me, but maybe I'm wrong about it's notability. Is the article notable to you guys? PÆon (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think articles are usually discussed here. Although no reason why they shouldn't be, this is how things are done on other Wikiprojects. I restored the reference to Concrete Wave, since that is a major magazine for this industry, and no reason for someone to have tried to delete that. [2] Dream Focus 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I already opined Lean Keep. Its a marginal article that could go either way, I did some searching and there's not much more to be done to rescue it.--Milowent (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the palaver over Tammy Jennings

Observe the amount of time wasted discussing deletion of the Tammy Jennings article, which was deleted because of blind adherence to WP policies, and then, as predicted, resurrected a few months later. More time was spent arguing about deletion than contributing to the article. cojoco (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got the touch...

Or rather, I have an incredibly cool set of databases at my disposal, now that I'm back in grad school. I was able to source a rather obscure television special currently at AfD (50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up) without needing to enlist the ARS' help at all.

So... if you've exhausted your resources and need some help, or can see something on Google News that's behind a paywall, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Be as specific as you can, and I'll get to the requests I can. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A new hater

User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire. Oy vey.--Milowent (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  • *shrug* Anyone displaying that userbox is asking to get their comments deleted from AfDs as being in bad faith; it flat out says the user has formed an opinion prior to reviewing the merits of the individual article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe so. I'm not suggesting there is any action to be taken, as the user is entitled to his own opinions. But its annoyed to see an editor badmouth the improvement of articles. We could delete 1/2 the project and it would still be filled with articles needing much improvement.--Milowent (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments like this aren't likely to make them suddenly realise the error of their ways and join the ARS for an inclusionist group hug. When the ARS does good work, it does good work, and that's apparent on its face and doesn't need defending. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your 2nd statement. As to the 1st, I'm just providing important social feedback for the editor, though I don't intend to escalate it further. Last point about the whole userbox thing, anybody can nominate something for rescue, as we all know. For example, Oxford Today, which is clearly notable, is up for rescue; I would hope editors wouldn't just vote 'delete' on such articles.--Milowent (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • May I suggest next time, "As a productive member of the Article Rescue Squadron who edits in good faith, I find this userbox offensive and would prefer if you altered or deleted it," or "This userbox could be framed in a way that would be less aggressive, would you consider trying x"? Which, of course, doesn't preclude us from thinking he's being a jerk in private.  :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'll compromise and say something like that but in pirate-speak, e.g., "As aye old seadog o' th' Article Rescue Squadron who be editing in the Utmost Goode Faith, I find this userbox doubly offensive an' would prefer if ye altered or deleted it, an' be quick about it, ya scallywag!"--Milowent (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, that is SIGNIFICANTLY more awesome than anything I suggested. I heartily endorse pirate-speak for all communications with potentially difficult individuals. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What I like is that the guy's user page has a big fat box proclaiming, "The page intentionally left blank" squeezed by a whole shitload of user boxes... something Dickensian about that... Dekkappai (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you all missed the more important userbox, the one that takes you to WP:DGAF. And furthermore, any future comments about my userbox which are made in pirate-speak will be given preferential treatment over those made in regular english. SnottyWong talk 14:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • We noticed it. Thanks for giving just enough of a fuck to reply here though. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, you mean like {{Afd-piracy}}? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That is an outstanding template. You should really use that to close some AfDs. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. I fully support the use of that template on any AfD. SnottyWong talk 19:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Additional external links

I propose adding one or more of these external links to the WP:ARS project page.

Best regards, Albany NY (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why?   pablohablo. 10:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Because, I think, they would provide useful and interesting information for members of the ARS and curious visitors. --Albany NY (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There's some interesting material there — thanks. A way of using it would be to have a section listing articles whose rescue by ourselves or others was notable — articles such as Mzoli's. The references provided might then be used as citations. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Artists pages at AFD

List of Magic: The Gathering artists has been nominated for AFD, along with the following Magic artist articles: Paul Bonner, Sue Ellen Brown, David A. Cherry, Dennis Detwiller, Fred Fields, Mark Harrison (comic artist), David Ho (artist), Quinton Hoover, Dana Knutson, Stephan Martinière, and Terese Nielsen. Finding any available reliable independent sources available would help to improve these articles. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Hmm, you've fallen prey to notable deletionist JBSupreme. Yes, adding sources to these articles is crucial. JB sometimes does not check very well for sources before nominating, but he usually does look for more marginal articles which are vulnerable to deletion. As is, some of these articles do not demonstrate notability.--Milowent (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I see the problem. It looks like he didn't do a great deal of research before nominating the pages, and it appears he did not notify any of the page creators. Most of the AFDs have little or no subsequent commentary. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I found a recent reference for Fred Fields - when I have time, I'll try to add more to that. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Franz Vohwinkel, John Zeleznik, Nene Thomas, and Randy Post are also up for AFD. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Building

Resolved

Jclemens (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice the closing admin gives the presence of a resuce tag as a point in support of his closing the debate against consensus. Any thoughts on this? Artw (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously I can't see the article, but it looks like he's saying, "Even though an attempt was made to rescue it, the article wasn't sufficiently improved, and sufficient sourcing wasn't found..." It's not like he's saying, "The Arseholes voted here, so I'm deleting! Take that, you Inclusionist scum! Mwa-ha-ha-ha!!!" If he'd said something like that, I'd be concerned... Dekkappai (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, {{rescue}} does seem to have been a factor in the closing admin's rationale. If anyone wants to see (and hopefully work on) the article, let me know and I can userify it for you. If anything, this sort of outcome makes me even more inclined to only try and actually "rescue" things that aren't tagged {{rescue}}, FWIW. Not sure it would be grounds for a successful DRV on that basis, though. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I've weighed in, politely at the closing admin's talk page. I see artw has likewise politely engaged, but I see that someone else has previously resorted to de facto berating him for the close, which is almost certainly unhelpful at best and quite counterproductive at worst. I suggest that artw and I continue discussing with the closing admin. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
When a closing admin decides to delete and there is not a consensus to delete apparent just based on the vote count, they already know a delete close may be contentious, so they are likely to mention all possible factors that support it. Saying an article was tagged for rescue and sufficient sources for notability were not found is suggesting that an attempt would have been made to find sources, which is probably accurate. The closer didn't suggest that ARS members flooded the vote--i think admins would rarely suggest that, but some editors will do that, and when you see that, let me know so I can kick their illegitimate-argument-spouting butt. The deletion of this article has more to do with the fact that it is about comic books, and the reasoning of the votes to keep, which may have been good reasons a couple of years ago, now stand in the way of deletion in 2010.--Milowent (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I was gutted about this as Id just started looking for sources and then when then i went to improve the article it was gone. Grrrrrr! But personally I wouldnt blame the admin as his actions seem to be within current policy. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Take it to DRV then, it's starting to look like the ARS is moving into harassment (based on some of the comments at the closing admin's talkpage) now when it doesn't get its way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Its actually just the opposite Cameron, some editors have posted crap about "ARSholes" in discussions without touching on any policy arguments. Its uncalled for. That's not this case though, where I think a DRV would go nowhere.--Milowent (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
its not a vote... that sucks though because i honestly think sources exist... either way the DRV will go no where... it is must smarter to find sources....Arskwad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

Note that after POLITE discussion with the closing admin, I was able to source the article and allay his concerns. Article has been restored to mainspace. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:ARSnote at WP:TFD

Just an FYI, but I've listed Template:ARSnote for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_30#Template:ARSnote. If anyone from ARS has any opinions on its actual value, it would be appreciated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: the template was kept. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPS - Party Time?

SO I haven't seen as many flagrantly bad AfD nominations lately, and have been dabbling in Category:All unreferenced BLPs and adding sources, sometimes just bare URLs (but real newspaper-type sources nonetheless), to articles tagged as unreferenced BLPS. Then I either remove the tag or replace it with the "BLP refimprove" tag (i.e., it needs more citations, but it does have some). There are currently 28,870 of these unreferenced BLPs (down from 43,000 in Feb. I believe). Anyone interested in joining me on a quest to eliminate one months' listing of these as a start? (The articles are marked according to when they were tagged as unreferenced, not when they were created, oftentimes the article existed for years without being tagged.) I guess this task is not wholly unrelated to Ikip's BLP contest idea, but that didn't get that far and this would be a collaborative team project). I nominate April 2008 as a start Category:Unreferenced_BLPs_from_April_2008, which has a manageable 458 articles tagged right now. Who's interested? Please post at User:Milowent/Unreferenced BLP Rescue! Also, if you source anything fascinating to you (even if its fascinatingly boring), add commentary as we keep a running tally of how the project is going. Cheers--Milowent (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC) (ETA: Verbal deleted my post on some theory that it doesn't "belong" here, but I am glad to see Mkativerata already reverted. If this project doesn't interest you, please ignore this talk subsection. --Milowent (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC))(ETA: Verbal then collapsed it, which I also reverted. (Personal attack removed)--Milowent (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

  • I agree, if there aren't any things tagged with {{rescue}} that an editor feels like working on, going through WP:PRODSUM and fixing BLP PRODs (that is, adding references to people where they can be found) is also a great idea to help out. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! April 2008 is down from 458 to 455 already! And I learned about some Bulgarian singer that is super famous in Bulgaria (and not the same Bulgarian singer I sourced last week).--Milowent (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I only had the time to look at one article this morning and I sent it to AfD. :( --Mkativerata (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Its down to 450 now, so thanks to all or whoever is helping! Let's get this steamrolling. Its time to have some fun around here instead of getting depressed about ARSehole jokes.--Milowent (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
      • down to 443!--Milowent (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
      • 436. Gawd could we have any more footballer articles?--Milowent (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Myself, I'm not interested in Bulgarian footballers and the like and so find this work too boring. What's needed to engage me is some sorting of these articles by type, so that I could choose a category of interest. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    Would any of these be to your taste? I think that MilHist, Native Americans, Mathematicians, New York and of course Heavy Metal have been bagsied, but that still leaves Beauty Pageant winners, Feminists and everything in between. Currently we have three quarters of the uBLP backlog project tagged for one or more wikiprojects, and we are working on the rest; But several of the WikiProjects are a little swamped, especially Canada, India, Actors, France and of course Football, where they've reduced the backlog by a thousand since mid March but still have 1726 left. Also some WikiProjects are simply dormant - no-one seems interested in the 212 ladies at Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Unreferenced BLPs, any gallant who rescued that lot would certainly deserve a barnstar. ϢereSpielChequers 15:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Down to 381 now...--Milowent (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 358. 100 down, 358 to go! What kind of article interests you Colonel? I'll let you know if I see any good uns.--Milowent (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just an update, we have worked down the number of unreferenced BLPs for April 2008 to only 13! Just two left to either prod/afd or rescue (the others are tagged for deletion unless sources can be found, as no sources were found after diligent efforts). The Unreferenced BLP Rescue team will probably move onto May 2008 once April is done.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The project is now moved to Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue, and we are commencing with June 2007 next. I bet there are no Gaelic hurlers in this bunch, but we'll see.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Reuben Morgan

Can someone please take a look at this? I'm not having time to this week, but this article makes several claims (e.g., Dove-award winning composer) that, if sourced, clearly demonstrate notability. I see tons of GHits for him, but many aren't in mainstream media outlets, so a detailed eye to include and cite would be nice. Plus, the article could use some trimmage, too... Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

the Aussie media is among the most aggressively secular in the world, hence the lack of mainstream coverage. Austalia is one of the few places in the world where atheism is still on the rise, they now even have an openly atheist premeir! But there's loads of sources available internationally, God willing enough have been added to save the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
most pastors don't get a lot of press coverage.--Milowent (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

IP adding {{rescue}} badly.

I've seen about 4-5 fictional topics where a variable IP address has been adding the "rescue" template to the bottom of the article, a section heading, or somewhere else not entirely visible from the front page, with no rationale for the addition. What does the ARS think should be done with such tags?

  • Move them to the header immediately following the AfD notice, as I've been doing?
  • Remove them as probable bad faith or disruption?
  • Leave them alone at the place where they've been added?

Dr. Franklin is one example of such a placement. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question; I just fixed another one at List of sovereign states with affairs controlled by others. How many total instances are we talking? I would think we should fix rather than delete, unless the total volume of tag additions removes any possibility of good faith. Leaving them alone does not seem like a good option. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
If the tag is added and its wholly ridiculous that its added, like to a hoax article, i'd be bold and remove it. The tag isn't only for ARS "members" to use, but some common sense has to apply. The tag is necessarily going to be added to articles where notability may not be clear because of lack of sources.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

New Members

So what are the requirements for me joining this organization? What would be my duties? Melanesian obsession (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

it is an open group! you can join whatever your views... no duties but you may want to agree with what we do which is to rescue artices... Arskwad (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So what is the "rescue" you speak of? Am I going to get my "marching papers" to go join in some deletion debate and stir up keep votes or what? Melanesian obsession (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

it is not about voting because wikipedia is not a democracy... it is about fixing articles that look like they are ready for deletion so that they look like they are worth keepingArskwad (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Melanesian obsession. as Arskwad explained this is about fixing articles, but in particular fixing the articles that would otherwise be deleted. Many articles get deleted without even an attempt to reference them, so one way to rescue an article is to look at the articles in Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion, take one that you find interesting and you think is notable, google them and see if you can find wp:reliable sources that confirm the information in the article and maybe enable you to expand it. With articles in that category all you need to do is add a reliable source and you can remove the prod notice and decline the deletion yourself. ϢereSpielChequers 08:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
This dude is an (Personal attack removed) attacking RAN again.--Milowent (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL. The children are safe now.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wording Suggestion

In regard to the discussion above, it appears there is some disagreement regarding wording. Shall we discuss it? The relevant passage is:

  • As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and likely benefits our readers.

My first suggestion would be:

  • As part of this tag's use, please comment if you can at the deletion discussion as to how the article in question might be revised to meet criteria for inclusion. Your input should constructively lead the way for editors to work together to meet Wikipedia's policies and improve the article to the benefit of our readers.

All comments, suggestion, criticisms, assorted fish, or corrections welcome. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got somewhat of a wording problem with that. Most AfDs are about notability: If a topic is notable, the article meets the criteria for inclusion, regardless of whether or not it has reliable sources in it. So, digging up sources and adding the article doesn't allow the article to meet notability criteria that it wouldn't have met before, but it does demonstrate that the topic was notable all along. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
An article that does not contain reliable sources may seem notable, and the article may assert notability, but that will merely serve to avoid the thing being speedy-bait. An article does not meet the criteria for inclusion absent a demonstration of notability by the presence in the article of multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in non-trivial detail. Jack Merridew 00:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we just had an undetected EC. But yes, I agree, except perhaps on "multiple", I'm not sure of the number required. Are there any other problems that the rescue squadron must need address beyond source, in regard to AFDs, given that AFD is not cleanup? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTE: Multiple sources are generally expected.
There are lots of problems with this squad, such as the members who disrupt AfD and rally the 'keeps'. Jack Merridew 00:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I will not go so far as to claim that that isn't true, but that's not the issue of this section of discussion. What I would like to do is see if we cannot come to some consensus as to wording of this particular paragraph. Do you have any particular suggestions as to wording? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I've restored my initial post here to under Jclemens' post, which it was directed at; it was not @you and your edit swapping things around to make it look as if I had replied to you was inappropriate. If you do not understand this, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.
My other comment was simply in response to your *asking*. You're new, so you may not realize that I'm a critic of the ARS. Jack Merridew 01:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
My bad, I thought you were replying to me. I may be new (although I don't really feel that new any longer), but I know your stances regarding ARS. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Poor form to cut into the middle of my post. I commented re Jclemens's comment; I've not looked at whatever thread is 'above'. I could hope that this place will sort itself out. fyi, the class=texhtml in the style attribute of your sig is syntactically in error; don't quote it, remove it. Jack Merridew 10:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Jack, the issue that I'm highlighting is that the ARS doesn't change notability--notability is notability, whether or not Wikipedia knows about the independent, reliable, non-trivial sources for a topic. All we can do is help provide sources which demonstrate it. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm speaking of wp:notability, not wikt:notability. If an ARS member (or anyone else) adds reliable... yada... sources, then they can establish notability, in the sense that the article may duck a bullet. Absent good sources in the article, it's not wp:notable/not appropriate for inclusion. Jack Merridew 02:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Go read the WP:GNG again--notice that it requires coverage, not coverage known to Wikipedians, nor coverage included in a specific article. A topic is notable or not, regardless of what sources are or are not in the article. No one who edits here makes anything notable; all we can do is reveal extant notability that others have overlooked, contrary to WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm talk demonstrating notability. Sure, a topic may, in fact, 'be notable' per some unknown sources, somewhere... But if it's not been shown, or if it is not quite reasonable to assume, then we don't assume something is appropriate for inclusion. That's the disservice this 'squad' is often responsible for; some article is at AfD and some sources are offered in the AfD, but are not incorporated into the article, which is nonetheless kept. For many, here, 'rescuing' is not about improving articles, it is about simply not deleting them. ARS, driving down the quality of Wikipedia, everyday. This is why a lot of people take a dim view of this thing. The burden of proof is on those who wish to include something. Jack Merridew 05:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You both make some valid points, but do either of you have suggestions for particular wording? That is the purpose of this section. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
How about integrating something like "such as by adding sources which demonstrate that a topic is notable"? Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, and your thinking parallels some of my own, as most all AFDs center on the notability issue. Do you have a suggestion for better wording? Should we focus on reliable sources? Or is there another way to phrase this? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Third Draft
    • As part of this tag's use, please comment if you can at the deletion discussion as to how the article in question might be revised to meet criteria for inclusion. Pointing out sources which demonstrate that the article's topic is notable is particularly useful. Your input should constructively lead the way for editors to work together to meet Wikipedia's policies and improve the article to the benefit of our readers.
Comments? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
My take:
  • "As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion and expressing your perspective on how this article might be improved in light of policy-based objections. Documenting independent reliable sources which demonstrate the topic's notability is particularly useful. Your input should facilitate collaboration among editors to meet Wikipedia's policies and improve the article to the benefit of our readers."
Thus, if the objection is WP:ITSCRUFT, the ARS isn't needed since that's not a legitimate argument. Likewise, I'm amplifying a bit, trimming a bit, and the like. Jclemens (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My take: As part of this tag's use, please notify the other AfD contributors at the deletion discussion and comment as to why the article has been rescue-tagged and how the article in question might be revised to meet criteria for inclusion. Pointing out sources which demonstrate that the article's topic is notable is particularly useful. Your input should constructively lead the way for editors to work together to meet Wikipedia's policies and improve the article to the benefit of our readers. SnottyWong chat 15:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
... Except that the default is inclusion, and exclusion criteria (such as non-notability) are what needs to be demonstrated in an AfD. Semantics, perhaps, but important ones. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I like both of those. In reference the SnottyWong's version, is the desire to have the other editors at the AFD discussion notified directly on their own talk pages? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Gaah, I hope not. That would be a LOT of notifications. Do it the way DELSORT does it: one note, in the AfD, at the time of implementation. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Definitely no need for editors to be notified on their talk page. Just a mention or a note on the AfD discussion page. SnottyWong talk 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Does anyone have any objections to either of the last two suggestions? Does anyone have a preference? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
What suggestions? This is now becoming incomprehensible - classic creep. These suggestions and all the resulting discussion may be well-meaning but seem quite irrelevant to the business of building the encyclopedia. I have just added a rescue tag to the article Mass arrest. Further detailed explanations of why and how this article might be rescued seem quite unnecessary - you just have to read the article, its talk page and the AFD discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
colonel is right.... we don't need to change the words or get complicated... most people know what the rescue template is for and for those who misuse it there is nothing you can do in the intructions that will stop them... but i dont really object to either revision... i guess i like snottywong's just cause it reminds people to notify that the template has been used... Arskwad (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually agree with both of you. I've never thought that a rewording of the instructions is required. My only concern is that very few people are actually following them. SnottyWong confabulate 23:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think rewording is required, but I think the clause asking for notification is good, and I think the last two revisions do a better job describing what kind of behavior is desired--after all, we're not prescribing behavior with this, but rather suggesting a course of action. Given that you all don't see a need for a change, does anyone have any objection to the changes suggested? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I would interpret the above comments (regarding the opinion held by multiple editors that no rewording is needed) as an objection to the changes suggested. SnottyWong soliloquize 23:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it probably isn't any sort of a solution to the problem that Snottywong alleges. In fact, it appears that compliance to the directions has never been particularly widespread, so what, precisely, will rewording them solve? Again, I routinely comply with the existing directions, so I'm probably a poor person to judge what would raise compliance, but something tells me a rewording is unlikely to help much. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think the current version of the directions is a bit vague, and that may be why they are so seldom followed. I also think the reworded versions are better and have the potential to guide users unfamiliar with the template to what we'd like to see. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Lazarus Effect (film)

Does Jimbo's article need a rescue? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lazarus Effect (film). Seeing the standard AFD notification on Jimbo's talk page made me chuckle.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

At this point, not so much. It's going to be a Landslide Keep. Which is much more awesome than a Snowball Keep. :P SilverserenC 19:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Totally. We need a hierarchy chart somewhere. Similar to how strong keeps count for two votes.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Article Improvement

Could some of you guys come and help me improve the Pie Corbett article? I know that there has to be more references out there somewhere to find, considering how many things the subject has been involved in. The main problem is sorting through stuff about the library of books he has written to find stuff that is secondary coverage of him. SilverserenC 03:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Need help pulling content from references

I'm attempting to rescue List of Star Control races from deletion. I added a few facts about the races to verify notability as a collective. But someone at the AFD argued that the individual races are completely unverified. It's a strict standard, but it's a fair one.

In the sources I've found, there is information about individual races. The Ur-Quan and the Spathi should be easy, but there are little facts about the others too. I was hoping someone could help me cull some of the plot summary (and the reception) from the sources I already added. Anything beyond that would be fantastic. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SW - Admittedly I know diddly about this fictional space stuff, but would like to make this observation about this list. The title ...races, the lead ....fictional alien species and the list entries ....this race, this species, these creatures is inconsistent. When I first saw this, I thought is was an article about some type of competition (ie. racing). In improving these kinds of lists, it is imperative that the title, the lead and the characterization of individual entries are in sync and leave no doubt about what the list is about and what it contains. Good luck with the sourcing.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Great finds with those sources! Added about 10 cites for different races just from the computer and videogames link alone. Out of wiki time for today, maybe others will help integrating the rest. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate the help. You've gone above and beyond the call of duty, because the notability requirement does not apply to the contents of the list, just the list itself. Still, I don't think the others in the AFD understand that. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Youre welcome, I added cites to the other sources, there still plenty of room for further additions . FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Scruffy Presidents

Niiiice. Great job there, you two. SilverserenC 21:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing {{rescue}} tags from closed AfD articles

I've rescued a couple articles, but I'm not really a member of ARS. I just come by once in a while to look for interesting articles I might want to rescue. I noticed a couple of articles on the current list have had their AfDs closed, but the closing admins didn't remove the {{rescue}} tags. Is there a reason for this, or is it an oversight? Should I be removing {{rescue}} tags from articles after the AfDs are closed? Just curious and thought I'd ask. Thanks. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can remove it yourself once the Afd is over.  pablo 14:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this happens from time to time, it should not remain when the AfD is closed.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Just want to double-check on this one, (Starscream (other incarnations)). The AfD was closed 6 days ago with the result as Merge, but the merge has not occured yet. Should this {{rescue}} tag be removed? Or should it wait until the merge is complete?. Thanks. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not the merge has taken place yet, the AfD is closed, so the rescue tag should be removed. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Carefully now, this thread makes awfully clear that this is simply a canvassing operation and isn't actually about editing articles at all. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL, you're joking right?--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
...i'm not sure if s/he is. ._. Hopefully so. SilverserenC 17:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

final fantasy gameplay

I'm not sure I understand the deletion rationale. But the article looks to be pretty well sourced. Would appreciate a second opinion at Final Fantasy gameplay. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

  • In my view, The deletion rationale there is videogames are not that important in the scheme of life, and we don't need extended explanations of the minutae of gameplay. It seems pretty well sourced for that kind of article. It also appears that the article began as a content fork in 2008, and if its deleted, then the gameplay section of the parent article is likely going to be expanded again, that should be considered. The game is notable, the debate seems to really be about how the content is organized across articles, just being discussed as an AfD.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Card Carrying Member of the ARS

Silver Seren is currently up for admin (and not doing so hot), part of the debate deals with his views as an inclusionist. Here is a question he was posed and and his answer.

7. You are a memebr of the Article Rescue Squad. Could you briefly summarize why you are a member? Do you believe there are currently problems with the article rescue squad? How should those problems be dealt with? What have you, personally, done to ameliorate those problems? Thanks for your time, and best wishes.

A: I originally joined the Article Rescue Squadron because I wanted to learn to help improve articles and save them at AfD. The ARS seemed like a good group to work together with to that end. I do believe that there are problems in the ARS, as a few of the members have ended up being banned because of their actions. A number of them were new editors, but not all. I think that the ARS needs to more properly define how it works, because the people who join are going to view it (as I did in the beginning) as a way to find articles that should be kept and to go vote keep on them. It is this sort of thing that leads to issues of "canvassing" on AfDs by members, to the point that if just two of us show up independently at an AfD, we might get called out for telling others about it, when we didn't. The one thing i've done to help deal with this problem is that i've foregone the use of the Rescue template on articles that are at AfD. The only thing that does is get others to vote keep, without a clear rationale as to why the article should be kept and, often, without any improvements being made to the article. Nowadays, while I am still a member of the ARS, I operate more or less independently, working on improving an article the best I can before I even vote in an AfD. The only time I contact other members is if i'm having trouble finding references for a subject (references that I am fairly certain that are out there), so I can get their expertise in finding them and improving the article. Though I do that very seldomly.

I now believe that ARS as an organization has a bit too many problems to work in a completely capable manner. It has the tendency to get too many new editors that don't understand the policies properly and that only reflects badly on the ARS. Thus, I am really only a satellite member at this point. I do believe several of the other members are very capable editors in their own right and extremely helpful when they show up to improve a page, but it is the rest that are an issue.

Thoughts anyone? The low number of tagged articles right now suggests that the continual abuse of the ARS has taken its toll. Does this mean that some potentially worthwhile articles have been deleted? I'm sure it has.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right worthwhile articles are being deleted. And Silver isnt the first outstanding editor to get hammered at RfA for being an ARS member and an inclusionist. Mud sticks and the abuse deletionists hurl at us seems to have been taken at least partly at face value by the wider community. A few months back I was told Sue Gardner, the head of the Foundation, was attending a London meetup so I went along with a view to raising awareness of our issue with deletionism. Sue seemed to share all our values; shes pro incluson and keen on promoting diversity and a friendly social environment that 's welcoming to newbies. But sadly she made it very clear that the foundation cant interfere especially when it comes to deletion matters, as if they do they will be at much greater risk of legal prosecution for any libelous material. As there was high attendence at the meetup we decided to do formal introcutions and this led to an even worse shock. I proudly announced "My name if Feyd and Im here to represent the mighty Article Rescue Squad." Literally the whole group except Sue booed and started making jokes about me being an arse!! Only one person there was a recognizable deletionist, there were two arbitrators, an x arbitrator , all good moderate ones, plus several admins. So its very hard not to conclude that the wider community has a low opinion of the Squad, rather than just deletionists . After all the tragic losses weve suffered with articles destroyed and inspirational editors permabanned or semi retiring, ive given our challenges a lot of thought and I don't think the issues are tractable given the ammount of energy we can realistically devote to wiki affairs. So maybe its best for us to accept that while we can save a few articles, we can do very little to check the huge tide of deletions and also that the community as a whole doesnt respect our efforts. Editors who want to write interesting and comprehensive articles on popular non elite topics are maybe best off going to Wikia. Maybe we should even think about adding something to our joining instructions so new recruits dont make the natural mistake of thinking the community values our noble project in the same way the outside world does. Its sad but membership of the Squad isnt currently advisable for anyone who would like to serve as an admin or maybe even who wants to have the best relations with the wider community, so no one should feel disloyal if they want to leave.
Or putting it another way, Silvers answer echoes a view many moderate members of the community seem to hold about us. There's not much we can do about it as the issue doesnt lie with the Squad. Its a classic case of the near irreversible capture of community opinion by an elite and tyrannical minority. Be interesting to hear if anyone is more positive about what can be done. I can only suggest laughing at the absurdity of it all or if youre not a materialist take comfort in the Blakes advice that nothing is ever truly lost, the ruins of time build mansions in eternity. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Feyd--what a horrible and perfect example you give; frankly, the people most likely to show up to those things are going to be like that, i guess. Perhaps we need to hire a PR firm, the swiftboating does take its toll over time.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
They seemned mostly nice when they werent talking about the ARS, which made it all the more shocking. Good idea about PR, maybe a whip round so we can hire Max Clifford. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The best PR is good work this rescue didn't involve any opposition whatsoever: I just found a crappy article that had been AfD'ed, which referenced a notable topic, and rescued it--with the help of several other "ARS members". Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
How to fix the problems....
1) Endorse the current notability criteria, make arguments that generally adhere to them in XfD discussions.
2) Abandon the idea of a "squad" or "Wikiproject". Eliminate member lists, and mainstream the idea of rescue as something that everyone should do.
3) Censure "radical inclusionists" who use the ARS or its successor(s) as a means to try and push inclusionism, rather than improve quality.
4) Focus on improving articles, especially sourcing, to demonstrate notability. Work collaboratively with nominators to make every rescue a WP:HEY, rather than a voting bloc accomplishment.
But that's just my take on it. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • JC, some good thoughts. Here's my take...
1) In AfD discussions, ARS editors need to apply current policy, including notability criteria, even if they would like to advocate for changes to policy in other appropriate settings.
2) Everyone should be doing it! Everyone should also be referencing unreferenced BLPs, but they don't.
3) The ARS really has no structure for censuring "members", so I'm not sure how this would work.
4) This should always be our goal, for every tagged article! An article should not be tagged unless you have some reasonable belief that sources should be available for adding. Because if they aren't added, its going to be deleted if its a fair nomination. E.g, that's what we tried to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up a few months back. There were sources, but unfortunately they didn't meet the notability threshold of the AfD participants. But it was a valid attempt to improve the article. (When they get deleted, i republish them on my blog and reap the hits, this is how Snottywong pays my heating bill.)
I'm really not that pessimistic, as I've said before, notable content always finds it way back into the project no matter how many times someone tries to delete it. There are far more inclusionists in the world than deletionists, the former just spend a lot less time on average on wikipedia.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
1) Here I totally agree with both of you. Part of the problem is when ARS members suddenly start swarming in to an AfD, and every single one votes for "keep" with an argument that does not convince anyone but the other ARS members. This is the kind of thing that gives ARS a bad reputation, and this is not what ARS used to do. (As far as I know the MO used to be improving the article and not voting.)
2) A WikiProject for improving articles that have potential but are about to be deleted is a good thing. This is how ARS started. That's not what ARS is nowadays. Some members may think they are doing that, but often their low quality standards seem to be part of the problem.
3) Competent editors edit, and when they happen to see a valid article under threat they improve it on their own and make sensible arguments for keeping it. They don't need something like ARS. It started with a number of such editors who enjoyed doing this together, but now that the project has been overrun by editors with medium or low competence ARS is no longer a fun place for them. The result is a WikiProject with an unusually high tolerance for absolutely crappy content and for inclusionist extremists who don't do much to improve articles but keep voting.
4) In the vast majority of cases this is no longer what happens when ARS gets involved, and for the reasons give above I doubt that this is going to change. Hans Adler 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • 5)Be polite! Calling people rabid inclusionists a la Dream Focus certainly doesn't do anything for your cause, and neither does linking to WP:BEFORE at numerous AfD's and berating the nominator for not finding sources that can only be found on a Norwegian newspaper archive search site, like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigmund Borgundvåg. Realize that Wikipedia needs deletionists just as much as it needs inclusionists. This is how everything is kept in balance. If all ARS regulars were able to take a step back and look at the big picture, then I think ARS would be a much different place. SnottyWong yak 22:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know when this change happened, but here is a sentence from the 2007 project page and what happened to it:

  1. If everybody who cares about preserving important topics glances at one deletion discussion per day (or even one per week), reads through the imperiled article, and rewrites it if it's deserving, people will start to think about the differences between unencyclopedic writing and unencyclopedic topics -- and maybe they'll start contemplating improvement before they contemplate deletion.
  2. If everyone who cares about preserving important topics and removing unsuitable content reads one deletion discussion per day (or even one per week), the impact will benefit all our readers. Moreover, reading through an article nominated for deletion and adding sources and rewriting the text to remove or reword unsuitable content will help other editors decide if the article should be kept or deleted.

If the description of a project's core activities can deteriorate in this way, there is an obvious problem. Hans Adler 22:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hans Adler. I would also suggest that when an article is tagged for rescue that the membership first find sources, add them to the article, and then !vote. I think doing things in that order creates a much better impression. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The future of ARS

From the comments above, it seems like ARS is probably in danger of continually worsening its reputation and slowly withering away like so many other Wikiprojects. Despite my history of comments calling ARS into question, I actually believe that it serves a purpose as a filter for the occasional inappropriate deletion nomination that slips under the radar. Is there anyone thinking about ways to change ARS to resolve the perceived problems with it, and restore its credibility and usefulness to the project? JClemens made a proposal with some interesting parts at User talk:Jclemens#And now for something completely different. The mechanisms I find the most interesting are:

  1. A mechanism where articles are tagged for rescue by group consensus, not by individuals. This eliminates the possibility of someone tagging an article for rescue solely because they worked hard on it and don't want to see it get deleted (or other similarly misguided reasons).
  2. A mechanism where ARS members voluntarily agree to not vote on rescue-tagged AfD's. This would significantly reduce the strength of the argument that rescue tagging is used for canvassing.

Just some thoughts from outside the ARS. SnottyWong verbalize 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these ideas. Instead of voting, members should be improving the article and then leaving a comment on the AfD, showing what has been changed. Thus, there can be proper discussion of it on the AfD without the issues of numerous Keep votes by members. I do believe that members should be allowed to discuss the added content and debate it on the AfD, though they shouldn't vote. SilverserenC 22:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your sentiments, as I have often seen articles up to deletion that didn't deserve it, just like I have seen totally nonsensical article topics kept. JClemens' proposal looks a bit too bureaucratic to me. Perhaps we can even give a possible ARS successor additional power: Nowadays we have some system for keeping articles out of article space for a while (I forgot where that is, though). Maybe when it looks like deletion but a group of editors wants to rescue an article, then every admin could have the power to move it into this purgatory. After exactly a week the article would be back to AfD and would stay there for a full week. Technically this would be a second AfD, but depending on the degree and nature of improvements the closer might take some of the !votes in the first AfD into account to some extent. I think this is only a very minor change to current practices, and it would be rather robust to abuse.
What I don't know is how to prevent another block voting club from forming around such a new project.
A much more fundamental approach would be a change to our deletion philosophy. Currently the ideology is that articles may only be deleted if the topic is not notable. Find a new notable topic that no editor is interested in writing about, create a new article, and fill it with some combination of copyvios, original research and NPOV violations, but no legitimate content. Then the ideology breaks down unless some poor editor decides to seriously work on a topic they are not interested in. A typical result is articles that are deleted in spite of existing potential, and even when a productive editor becomes interested in the topic this counts as precedent. (Example: Someone simply dumped the LaTeX source code of his published mathematical research paper into a newly created article. The topic appeared borderline notable but only of specialist interest and not worthy of much attention before dozens of other maths articles have been written that would be required to understand it. The existing text was probably a copyvio because it is unlikely that the author retained his copyright. It was also completely unencyclopedic and the formulas were unreadable and required an enormous amount of work. Many professional mathematicians wasted hours with this nonsense. The rational approach would have been to simply delete this without prejudice as an innocent mistake by someone who didn't understand Wikipedia.)
The German Wikipedia does this differently: If a new article is so crappy that it's easier to start again than to improve it, then it is simply deleted until someone gets around to recreating it properly. The result is less crap lying around that misleads readers and gives a bad impression of our overall quality standards. — One reason why this works rather well is that in most cases it's the topic WikiProjects that are in charge of this. They generally have a good idea of the importance of a topic within its field, the quality of an article, and to what extent it is redundant with existing articles. The mechanism for this is a unified "article quality" queue to which you submit problematic articles. An open-ended discussion then typically results in improvement or sometimes deletion. Hans Adler 23:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Their (German) Wikiprojects are a lot more effective than ours. Here, unless you're a rather large and expansive Wikiproject, no one really does anything with it. Wikiproject:Terrorism would be a good example. But on German, even the much smaller Wikiprojects have people who are extremely dedicated and active. Truthfully, it seems to me that German attracts a lot more fo the types of users that are active in the long term, rather than the ones we have here that edit for a bit and then leave. But that's just my opinion. SilverserenC 23:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Calling my ideas a "proposal" generously overestimates their readiness. :-) I am actively interested in finding ways to make sure that worthwhile content is kept, and have been mulling over the problem for at least two years now. My ideas may or may not be closely related to the eventual "next step" in solving the problems, but if they advance the dialogue, then they were worth my time to write down. Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Snotty's ideas and this sub-section merit discussion, but I can find no evidence that the ARS ever has enjoyed a high reputation and credibility--its always been disparaged by some no matter how many articles it has salvaged. Part of the problem is that we need to take time to highlight good rescues (like when you convince the nominator to withdraw after improvement) instead of letting people focus on lesser examples as if they were the norm (which they are not, in my experience).
As to Snotty's specific ideas, some thoughts, (1) "A mechanism where articles are tagged for rescue by group consensus, not by individuals."--The rescue tagging process is similar to the prodding process, one editor alone can add the template. And they don't have to be a member of ARS to add it. While sometimes a more experienced ARS member will remove the template from a tagged article that has no business being tagged, its rare; more often, an unsaveable article is mostly ignored.
(2) "A mechanism where ARS members voluntarily agree to not vote on rescue-tagged AfD's." A bit drastic, unless all deletionists agreed to the same if one nominated an article for deletion. I wouldn't want either to occur, though. But the underlying concern you are trying to address is worth more discussion. Maybe ARS members agree not to do any "keep per (other ARS member)" votes, which are usually not worth much anyway, except to inflame.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
... Except that when there has been actual improvement in sourcing, there's no good reason NOT to do precisely this. I find myself doing "Keep per Col. Warden's additional sourcing" reasonably often and never inappropriately. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That's true, too. And in fact, while such votes seem to be the ones that inflame "deletionists," there's nothing wrong per se with such votes in an AfD. Once 10 people have voted in any AfD, most every possible argument has been made.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it would help with reducing the tensions around ARS if members stopped labelling users just because they disgaree with their inclusion criteria? Also, from what you say I presume this means that you agree that vote tallying is not a useful way to measure consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think the better choice is to entirely eliminate deletion, except in cases of NOT: copyvio, attacks, ads/promotion, unverifiABLE, OR, and the like. Anything else, where it's simply a question of notability, belongs somewhere. Maybe not on Wikipedia at all, but if the debate is framed as "host here" vs. "host elsewhere", that's a much better and less threatening discussion to have than a "keep" vs "delete" discussion. DGG has done some work in the area, and really, I think the problem is endemic to AfD: the name implies partisan "Should this be kept or deleted?" questions, rather than the "Where does this information best fit?" Not that there's anything wrong with being civil, mind you, but the root cause of the problems around AfDs is they fundamentally ask the wrong question much of the time. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • @Spartaz, I would disagree that 'vote tallying' is not useful; it can be, but it isn't dispositive. I don't believe admins can or should apply supervotes to AfD closes, which they would if the number of votes meant nothing--I've been around with you on that before. Forcing us to work for consensus as an aspiration makes people much more civil than they would otherwise be. I do indeed label members as "deletionists" when I think it applies, but that doesn't mean they are evil.--Milowent • talkblp-r 07:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The labelling is extremely counterproductive. Spartaz Humbug! 12:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

merging templates?

I consider myself still a member of ARS because I rescue articles, though my few AFD closes have all been deletes, and I don't use the rescue template because I'm not particularly comfortable about it. I would like to suggest that we merge the ARS rescue template with the AFD one. I do like the bit help improve the article to make clear whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion and notability criteria. You may edit this article to add reliable sources, and address other concerns raised in the discussion. I think that merging the two templates would make the AFD process less newbie biting than it is now, and hopefully more articles would be rescued - not just by us but by the authors. There is an awful lot of article rescuing that goes on on Wikipedia, and it needs people doing things as diverse as referencing articles, advising newbies and dishing out barnstars, But I'm not convinced that putting up weak arguments at AFD is helpful, if people want to broaden the notability criteria then to my mind that is a slightly separate thing to ARS - our objective is, or should be to rescue those articles that belong on Wikipedia according to current policy. ϢereSpielChequers 01:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I see very little sign of article rescuing, either by the ARS or others. Given this, User:WereSpielChequers' idea of merging the AFD template with the ARS template seems nonsensical. I check all the AFDs for each day and, typically, about 1-2% of the articles seem worth rescuing. For example, in the last batch I checked, there were just two articles which seemed worthy. One was Cum shot and that didn't seem to need any help. The other was Root trainer and I felt I could handle that without any help. But I'm still waiting for anyone at all to show up to help with Retail in Aberdeen which I tagged for rescue days ago. So, engaging the ARS in trying to rescue the worthless 98-99% just isn't going to happen as it's already overloaded by the tiny number of articles which we already have listed. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the Colonel that we shouldn't merge the ARS template into the AFD, because most AFDs don't merit rescue. BTW, Colonel, I did look at Retail in Aberdeen, but I didn't chime in because I didn't think we have separate articles like that for most cities, and I figured the worthwhile content could go under Aberdeen#Economy; the major shopping centres in that city already have articles.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • If you have considered the matter then you ought to express that opinion in the discussion, which has not been well attended. It doesn't bother me because merger is a variety of keep - the important thing is that the material worth preserving is saved in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll jump in, I just hadn't had time.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Re Colonel Warden's point, firstly one sign I see of articles being rescued are the more than ten thousand unreferenced BLPs that have been referenced so far this year. If you doubt that rescuing is going on try watchlisting a random sample from Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion I suspect you'll be surprised at the proportion that subsequently get rescued. Secondly my proposal isn't about tagging AFDs for rescue in the sense that ARS has done - its about adding help improve the article to make clear whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion and notability criteria. You may edit this article to add reliable sources, and address other concerns raised in the discussion. to the standard AFD template partly to make the process less bitey to the author of the article and partly to make it clearer to them how they can save the article they started. Remember the ARS template doesn't go on at the same time as the AFD template, so we may already have lost the author if they are a newbie. As for the proportion of AFD tags worth rescuing, if there are no reliable sources to be found then all this does is make the reason for deletion clearer to the author. If this also resulted in a few more article creators starting to use reliable sources for their current or future articles then I would consider it a success. ϢereSpielChequers 07:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not interested in random BLPs and tend to stay away from them because of the hysteria associated with them. I tried rescuing one or two in that huge backlog and found it was major boring sh*t. The main problem is that you can't tell, from the article's title, what the topic is going to be like as it's just a random name. If I'm going to write up a person, I'd rather start with someone that I know is interesting. For example, I'm currently reading Oliver Postgate's autobiography. He and his extended family (Raymond Postgate, George Lansbury &c.) were an interesting crowd and merit good coverage here, if they don't already have it. As for the problem of deletion being bitey, that's not really an issue for the ARS. It's the NPP (new page patrol) crowd that need to be taken to task. They seem to have a really hostile attitude and seem to do a lot of damage to the project in consequence. I read recently that, for a good personal relationship, positive comments and praise should outnumber negative, hostile comments by 5:1. I suspect that the positive:negative ratio at NPP is far from that. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to have a setup in the AfD template that, like certain parts of Wikiproject templates on talk pages that deal with task forces or with the specific questions on BLP templates, will only have the rescue section pop up if it is set to "rescue = yes" or something similar. Otherwise, it would just be the normal AfD template. SilverserenC 05:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the main article rescuers throughout the project (whether or not they are or have ever been members of WP:ARS) would continue doing what they do without the {{rescue}} template. And those who just turn up to cast their !votes and harangue other editors do not need a template to do this. Which makes me wonder whether the template is actually serving any useful purpose.  pablo 14:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it useful, because there are articles I have rescued only by being alterted to them by the tag. With 50-100 articles up for AfD every day, I can't scan every discussion. Here's a perfect example from just this week: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigmund Borgundvåg. In that case, the nomination was not bad, it just took effort to find the sources--it if hadn't been tagged it could have been deleted.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • When talking about the future of ARS, it is useful to consider the past. I put together a timeline, User:Milowent/History of the Article Rescue Squadron. It appears to me that the ARS has always been the subject of ridicule of some editors from the very beginning. Yet, the basic structure has remained in place for over 3 years, and no one disputes that the project has "rescued" many worthy articles. Some can debate which were worthy. The primary concern, of canvassing having an improper skewing effect on AfD outcomes, is never actually proven--what some might call "canvassing votes" in certain cases actually happens after an article is improved and it becomes a clear keep. It is impossible to eliminate all concerns about canvassing, because the very nature of the project will make people think about the possibility, as shown by the early attempts to delete the project.
I think one thing the project needs to do better is documenting its rescues; this is the key value of the project, and people forget about it. Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame is rarely used nowadays. I never thought I needed to document my rescues, but I think it would go a long way to showing that the project is a good thing -- it would be nice if the hall of fame could be ordered chronologically by default so recent rescues are listed as the top.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't use the Hall of Fame anymore because I was getting criticized for it by a number of people. Instead, I just keep the list of my rescues on my user page. It's a lot cleaner that way anyways. SilverserenC 19:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
haha, I vaugely recall a discussion on that but don't even know if i commented. In any event, I'm thinking there needs to be some way to highlight good rescues.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should make it that we aren't allowed to highlight rescues that we, as a user, made ourselves, and it is one of the other members that has to add a rescue that a single person made. That way, there is verification of it being a worthwhile mention on the Hall of Fame. I think that would fix any problems. SilverserenC 21:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_48&oldid=1136063130"