Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 → Archive 55

Follow your own instructions

Many ARS members who routinely tag articles for rescue are habitually missing one of the steps outlined on your project page. Namely:

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. You can also add the template {{subst:Afdrescue}} to the deletion discussion, to let other editors know that this item was tagged for rescue.

Neither a comment about why the article should be rescued nor a template tag notifying editors of the article's rescue status are ever added to the rescue-tagged AfD nominations that I see. SnottyWong babble 06:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In practice, many folks will include a rescue rationale in the edit summary when adding the tag--that's how I do it, but I haven't tagged anything for rescue recently. Jclemens (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I generally do the same as Jclemens, and I see others frequently do it as well. Does it happen in every case? I am sure it does not, as its not a law or anything. I guess it didn't happen to smelly socks, right? Realistically, most of the article rescue work needs to be done during the AfD period or the deletion-prone will decry its continued existence.--Milowent (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Editors usually say something of the sort in their contribution to the AFD debate - that the topic is notable, that there are lots of sources to be found and the like. The master of this is User:Uncle G. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loyalty, for example, where his analysis of the matter is crushing. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A note in the edit summary doesn't notify anyone in the AfD discussion that it's been flagged for rescue. Even if someone sees the {{Rescue}} template on the article itself, it's unlikely they're going to go check your edit summary for an explanation. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the person who tags the article for rescue to include a short notification and explanation within the AfD discussion, like this:
Article tagged for rescue - I have tagged the article for rescue, because while sources are hard to come by for this subject, I think we can find enough to warrant its inclusion.
That also gives the closing admin an easy-to-find timestamp for when the article was tagged for rescue, so they can take into consideration the point at which the article might have significantly changed during the discussion. SnottyWong chatter 18:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
this is a pretty fair request... it would go a long way to silencing critics who say we are just here to stuff votes... Arskwad (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
And the notable absence of such notifications despite my request here and your own rules goes a long way to silencing those who say the ARS is not about canvassing and stuffing votes. SnottyWong confabulate 20:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
So which editors aren't doing this? Name and shame, if you want. Remember, though, that anyone can tag an article for rescue--"membership" is not required, and I've highlighted on this page and ANI where IP addresses have been inappropriately tagging articles for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Almost all of you, really. As you know, I patrol the rescue-tagged AfD's on a regular basis and I rarely see anyone notifying the AfD or explaining why/how the article needs rescue. There was a short time a few days ago where an IP tagged a lot of pages for rescue in one day, and someone went through and followed up my {{ARSnote}} tags with a notification that the articles were tagged by an IP, which is perfectly acceptable. The most recent one I ran into was a tag by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) on List of British pop musicians of the 1940s, with no notification in the AfD, no explanation in the AfD, and no explanation even in his edit summary. Since it's really unclear what aspect of the article needs "rescue", an explanation would be helpful. At this point, it appears that he's tagged the article for rescue because the nominator is making "bold edits and moves", which isn't an appropriate use of the ARS in my opinion. I'm making an assumption, of course, but without an explanation that is all I can do. SnottyWong confess 22:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The rescue tag explains itself quite well and there seems no need for special explanation in that case or most other cases. If most of us here don't provide such explanations then this shows that this is our normal practise and so it is SnottyWong who is out of step. Please see WP:CREEP which explains that superfluous instructions should be discarded when they have no value, as they tend to obfuscate and confuse rather than assisting us. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well then perhaps you should gain consensus among the ARS members to modify your own instructions for tagging an article. I would, however, be interested in hearing why you decided to tag List of British pop musicians of the 1940s for rescue. There's only one delete vote, and the arguments are mostly over inclusion criteria, not notability or sources. In cases like these, an explanation of why you're tagging an article for rescue would clear things up, and show that you're not just flagging the AfD to gain the attention of fellow ARS members (who seem to have already noticed it since you tagged it). SnottyWong communicate 00:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Snottywong has a point. ARS is indeed supposed to be about sourcing things. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the suggestion that we add a note is a good one. That being said, it is generally the case that most articles up at AFD need additional reliable sources. We should probably think about rewording in both the guidelines and perhaps the templates. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Well then perhaps you should gain consensus among the ARS members to modify your own instructions for tagging an article." This discussion is getting a bid absurd and farther and farther away from doing anything constructive. If someone, like Snotty, sees a rescue-tagged AFD with no explanation for why the rescue tag was added, and its not obvious why it was added, they can ask in the AfD. Let's not get hypertechnical, especially based on the urging of an editor who, while acting in good faith, apparently thinks the ARS is a bad bad evil thing.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If the instructions aren't followed either another editor could take responsibility for following the instructions, or the tag should be removed, and it can then reinserted by someone following the instructions if they feel it should be added. Verbal chat 08:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Should all tags be removable if their respective instructions aren't followed, Verbal? If not, what makes {{rescue}} special? Jclemens (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, nothing. (except for certain legal ones such as copyvio, and tags should not lead to editwarring but discussion. Rather than edit war just do what the instructions say) Verbal chat 19:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for merge templates to be removed if the tagger does not include a rationale on the talk page. I am somewhat receptive to the argument that the limited AfD period requires extra care. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The instructions are meant to be reflective of accepted practice not prescriptive. As they seem outadted I'll remove them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I added some additional suggestions to Template:Rescue reflecting this discussion as well. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't seem right to delete well-meaning instructions just because you don't feel like following them. Claiming that they're "outdated" implies that something has changed over time which makes the instructions less relevant today. The only thing that seems to have changed is that perhaps ARS members have become lazier. SnottyWong confer 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Come on Snotty, stop being an personal attack removed by Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC). If the instructions are misleading, maybe they need modification, don't accuse others of being lazy in a classic WP:DICK way.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ignoring the "personal attack removed by Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)" oxymoron (and reference to DICK, which is covered by DICK), the instructions are still relevant and I have reverted the removal.Verbal chat 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Milowent, that was uncalled for. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You're a better man than I, JC. Snotty and I, however, come from the same mold, though we serve different masters.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yeah, calling me a douchebag and a dick is pretty civil. It's clear to me now personal attack removed by Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC). I'm simply pointing out that your organization has instructions (and good ones) for how an article should be correctly tagged for rescue, and your members are not following these instructions. Your response is to delete the instructions. So, I can only assume that the reason for the deletion is that you are too lazy to explain why you are tagging an article for rescue. Either that, or you are trying to stealthily tag articles for rescue and hope that !voters don't notice. In any case, your trolling is not going to get the reaction out of me that you're looking for. SnottyWong chatter 21:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
And I resent the implication that you and I "come from the same mold", Milowent. I take that as an insult. SnottyWong yak 21:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)No, its not civil at all, because your mode of debate is a model of stealth incivility. I have my opinion known and I will leave it there. You have made your opinion known, and I credit you for saying you won't have a hissy fit, which I did expect to be your response. I'll let others carry on the civil discussion and cool off a bit.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Snottywong, have you gone back and found that the directions have been more often followed in the past? I would be interested to see if they were, indeed, generally followed. If not, then the instructions may have been well meaning, but never actually followed. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's actually not easy to find articles that have been tagged for rescue in the past. If you know of a good way, let me know and I'll check. SnottyWong spill the beans 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If you search "everything" tab for "articles for deletion" and "rescue" you'll find some, but maybe not a representative sample.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting though--I hadn't considered that. It would probably be a horrendous amount of work to do by hand, but a bot could go through the AFD archives since the ARS was constituted, then check the history for any still-extant articles (or an admin bot can go through deleted revisions...) and see if a {{rescue}} had been added. Once we had those incidents, we'd be able to zoom in and review them by hand to see what had actually been done. So, yeah, probably not a whole lot of benefit for all that work, so I don't think we're going to be able to say with any degree of certainty whether adherence to the directions is increasing, decreasing, or unchanged. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles subpage seems to be the most complete archive through October 2009. There is also history in WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles (older) and User:DASHBot/ARSPAGE (newer). Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be a pointless waste of time, and still wouldn't allow you to change the rules - that would require a consensus, prefereably of members (like me) - and apparently despite being highly active here you are uninvolved and not a member. I do not support the removal, as that would make this project worse and possibly damage the project as a whole. We should be improving this project, not harming it. Verbal chat 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I said "not a whole lot of benefit". There aren't any "rules" on Wikipedia, and template usage directions don't even rise to the level of guidelines, let alone policies. Rather, the real question should be how to proceed forward, and one need not be a member to be involved in any matter of any Wikiproject. (Verbal, what was the last AfD article you attempted to rescue, BTW? Reuben Morgan was mine) Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Every AfD I visit, and I have tagged articles for rescue (and followed the instructions). I think you missed my sarcasm - you are clearly involved and are fooling no one by claiming not to be a member, when you are one of it's most ardent activists (and one of the better ones). Verbal chat 10:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Your're introducing irrelevant issues into the discussion here which concern no one but you and I. Snottywong has moved on, and he and I (among others) are engaging civilly on ARS-related matters. You're entirely welcome to bring relevant things up on my talk page so we can avoid any other distraction to the discussion of Snottywong's concerns. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the point is that both notifying the AfD and providing and explanation for rescue-tagging an article are useful, and there is no perceived downside from following those instructions. Also, following the instructions takes very little additional effort. So, I guess I'm wondering why you guys are being resistant to notifying the AfD participants that you've tagged an article for rescue, and providing a reason for why it requires rescue. You seem to be trying to find different ways to justify the removal of those instructions, and I don't think it's clear why removing the instructions is preferable to following them. SnottyWong gab 23:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the utility, and that's how I proceed. Actually, I've more-often-than not NOT included {{rescue}} if I could fix the problem myself, because it avoided a bunch of knee-jerk delete !votes which seem to occasionally accompany tagging something for rescue. At any rate, while the effort may not seem to be too burdensome, you and I aren't every editor, and Wikipedia tends to not require much of the volunteers here. Thus, while failing to explain what sources are expected to be found may impair the rescue itself, that may be its own natural consequence for the editor's failure to explain: no explanation, no new sources, and no changed outcome to the AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems to need repeating that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. As for List of British pop musicians of the 1940s, this seemed to be a trainwreck AFD which could use many hands to sort out. The primary list that I looked at was underpopulated, just having a handful of entries (zero at one point). As there must have been many popular musicians in Britain during that decade, and the other decades may be in a similar state, it seemed that ARS members might like to assist in fleshing the lists out. And it may be that there are already better lists of this kind out there and ARS members might have some knowledge of this. Perhaps there are other relevant projects too who might help. The more the merrier seems a good principle to follow as many deletion discussions are too perfunctory and the topics don't seem to get a good airing. It seems quite incredible that a fundamental index like List of occupations should be going down by default to absurd misapplication of policy and handwaving votes. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a host of PA's from this section. You all know better. Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Personal attack?" Ha... again, this reminds me of some past behavior here... Though mentioning it, obviously, is not permitted. Dekkappai (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The instructions removed by User:FeydHuxtable were originally added by User:Benjiboi in June 2009. The nearby mention of {{Afdrescue}} was added a few days earlier by User:Gigs. My impression is that compliance with these instructions has always been low, with occasional exceptions. In January 2010, I wrote a helper script User:Flatscan/rescueTag and mentioned it here, but there was very little interest. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The snotty suggestion is my nominee for POINTY comment of the month. First of all, he might note that its clearly a request, not an instruction. The instruction appears in the example in the instructions. The instructions also contain a request ("Please ..."). Secondly, typically it is a situation of res ipsa loquitur. What can be improved relative to the article is delineated in the AfD itself, by people such as Snotty who are seeking the deletion on certain grounds. Finally, of course the ARS has already announced what it focuses on mainly: supplying references in the AfD, improving the article's writing, adding information not readily available, and cleaning up. In the absence of more, common sense suggests that it is just those matters that the ARS can focus on as to any particular article. This is all rather silly.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is silly. It's true that in some cases, it is obvious where the improvement needs to be made in the article. In many cases, however, it's not. I've often stumbled upon AfD's tagged for rescue when all of the !votes were Keep, and I couldn't fathom a reason for why the article needed rescue. However, even if you're not going to provide a reason for rescue tagging the article, it's essential (in my opinion) to at least notify the AfD discussion that you have tagged the article for rescue. We have already discussed the reasons for why this is important above. Either way, if you don't notify the AfD, I will end up doing it for you. SnottyWong confess 06:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well you would, wouldn't you? I mean, you just left this same highly POINTy advice at the AfD here. Long after you and the minority !deleters had left word as to what you thought was deficient in the article being considered at that AfD. Are you suggesting that you and your confederates were less than clear in what you thought had to be changed in the article, for you to !vote keep? That barely seems plausible. This doesn't come across to me as someone who is trying to be helpful. And your response here seems like wikilawyering. The example I give, from earlier today, clearly isn't what you suggest is an "I've often stumbled across" situation at all. I view this as simple disruption, and your above excuse for your making your statements erodes the basis of good faith with which we start this conversation.
And its not essential to notify the AfD discussion. Editors can see that the rescue squadron has been notified at the AfD'd page (they can't, in contrast, see there whether it has been added to any deletion lists, or listed on any wikiproject pages, etc., so transparency is greater here). Nor do we require people to indicate when an AfD is added to a deletion list. Or if they leave word of the AfD on a wikiproject page. We have templates that allow it. But there is no burning reason to require editors to spend their time doing it. The benefit seems marginal at best, and it is certainly not wikipedia convention to require it in any similar circumstances.
But yes, you should always feel free to notify the AfD discussion: a) if the article is tagged for rescue, b) if it is has been added to deletion lists--and if so to which ones, c) if the nom has been notified, c) if the major contributors have been notified, d) if !voters at prior AfDs have been notified, and ) if there has been non-canvassing (or canvassing) notification of other editors, and if so, which ones. Knock yourself out. It does no harm, and could well fall under the category of courtesy, though I fail to see the great good it is doing.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you view these notifications as disruptive is baffling, and the fact that you view my comments here as wikilawyering and POINTy is clearly a bad faith assumption, especially considering that this is not a personal request from me, but instead I'm just pointing out that the ARS instructions clearly say to notify the AfD discussion that you've rescue-tagged an article, and explain why. If anyone is wikilawyering, it's you by claiming that since the relevant ARS instructions begin with the word "Please", that means they're intended to be optional. Please. If you actually read the comments above and didn't jump into the conversation weeks after it started, you'd see that there is general agreement that it is important to notify the AfD discussion that you've tagged the article for rescue. There are two main reasons for this: Firstly, to notify the closing admin that the article may have been radically changed during the course of the AfD, and so some of the earlier !votes might need to be invalidated. Secondly, to notify the closing admin that the article was tagged for rescue, so that he/she can be aware of a pattern of votes which might indicate that the rescue tag resulted in canvassing. Again, it's just a request to follow your own organization's instructions. Following these instructions would occupy approximately 15 seconds of your time (far longer than we've spent debating it here), so I'm not sure what the problem is. If you don't do it yourself, I'll eventually do it for you because I read every rescue-tagged AfD. SnottyWong babble 14:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, in the example you gave above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Jamiatul Ahlia Darul Ulum Moinul Islam, I didn't even !vote in that AfD. So when you talk about me and my "minority !deleter confederates", you're basically making an assumption of bad faith based on imaginary events. And, to your comment that editors can see that the rescue squadron has been notified at the AfD'd page, you are not addressing my point. My point is that people in the AfD discussion may not be aware that the article has been rescue tagged. If I !vote early on in an AfD and the article gets rescue-tagged afterwards, then if I come back later to comment again, it's unlikely I'm going to go back to the article and read it again. Therefore, I won't see the {{rescue}} template on the article. Most people are going to read the article once, and then not go back to it unless they have a specific reason to. Taking 9 seconds to notify the AfD discussion solves that problem. SnottyWong converse 15:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a volunteer project: there are no requirements to do anything in particular. There are plenty of instructions on things to avoid, details of justifications which are considered actionable, and the like. While I agree that there's plenty of benefit in notifying AfDs of specific rationales for rescue, there's absolutely no way to make a best practice mandatory. Compare notifications on ANI, for instance. It's "required" to notify someone you bring up... but it's not done in about 1/3 to 1/2 of the cases. In many cases if the notification's not made, the first person to notice and comment on the deficit fixes it. If ANI, with its broad participation and many eyes, can't get it right, what hope does ARS have? Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it's not a requirement and likely won't ever be. I honestly think it would give the ARS an "image boost" (for lack of a better term) if you followed these instructions frequently. It would give an air of greater transparency, in my opinion. But, as I said, if certain ARS members are not interested in following these "suggestions", then I will be there to pick up their slack. SnottyWong communicate 15:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Might I just say that, as far as I know, i've always added a note in the AfDs about having added a Rescue template to an article. You can find links to all the AfDs that i've rescued on my userpage and i'm rather confident that i'll have close to a 100% on having notified those in the AfD discussions. SilverserenC 02:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I rarely use these tags. But then I've been rescuing articles a long time, longer than this squadron has existed. My preferred method goes back many years, and is to simply place an ordinary horizontal rule (---- markup) in the AFD discussion in the proper chronological order at the point where the expansion, "Kerrrzappp!", refactoring, or whatever occurred. Of course, there have been plenty of times where the hint has proven to be too understated, and people adding to the discussion have just edited out the horizontal rule. There are times where I haven't noted things in the AFD discussion at all, and left the changes entirely unmentioned. In part this is because of the tendency that I observed a year or so ago for "Uncle G'd" to become a verb (example). Uncle G (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A question for SnottyWong

Having followed this discussion for sometime, I've come to the following conclusions--Members of projects that proffer advice to editors should follow their own advice. Seems like a reasonable idea. But what if they don't? What should the conseqences be? What about non-members of projects that don't follow project advice? I am not a member of ARS but I have added on occasion the Rescue tag to articles. I don't know whether I followed the project's advice to the tee or not. Snotty's drawing attention to the fact that ARS project members don't always follow their own advice is commenable, but to what end. Should there be real consequences for any project, if their own advice isn't being followed? I know what others think from above, but Snotty What do you think? What's the next step here?--Mike Cline (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The next step is to dissolve the ARS. SnottyWong verbalize 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Kidding. No, I don't think there is a reasonable next step. The instructions on the ARS page are clear, and many people are not following them. As Jclemens rightly points out, this is a volunteer organization and you can't really force anyone to do anything. So, I suppose the only thing motivating people to follow the instructions is either 1) faith that the instructions were written for a good reason, and a desire to do things "correctly", or 2) the desire to not have me adding an {{ARSnote}} template to the AfD. SnottyWong confess 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with you adding ARSnote if no notification has been made, nor with politely asking people that routinely don't follow the recommendations, to do so. My only concern is that the ARSnote be chronologically placed if it is to be included. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that chronological placement would be best, which is why ideally the rescue-tagger would simultaneously notify the AfD discussion. When I add the {{ARSnote}} template myself, the placement is roughly chronological, but it might be off by up to a day. I don't really have the time or motivation to go back through the history, figure out when the rescue tag was placed, and try to squeeze the {{ARSnote}} in at the exact chronological point in the AfD discussion. I'll just put it at the bottom of the page when I happen to get to it. SnottyWong converse 16:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I like to add this checklist to the project page

I think this would help us alot if everyone did these types of things on rescue articles. Any thoughts?--Mike Cline (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue checklist

Here's a quick checklist of 10 steps anyone can take for an article that needs rescue:

  1. - Add WikiProjects - Look at the article's talk page to see if anyone has added appropriate WikiProject banners to the article. WikiProject banners help draw attention to articles from editors who are interested in the subject. You don't need anyone's permission to add a relevant WikiProject banner to an article talk page.
  2. - Solicit WikiProject support - Many articles needing rescue merely need attention from an expert on the subject. A short note on a WikiProject talk page seeking expert attention can bring remarkable results fast.
  3. - Take the time to Strengthen the Lead - The Lead sets the tone for the rest of the article. Take the time to rewrite the lead so that the article title and the contents of the article are in sync. Nothing detracts from an otherwise notable subject, than a lead that doesn't do a good job conveying what the article is about.
  4. - Find and add sources - It is most important that sources demonstrating the notability of a subject are added when they are found. Do it properly, using the correct citation templates.
  5. - Wikify the article - If an otherwise notable subject is just a bunch of unorganized content on the page, it is our job to clean it up when we find it and bring into line with our MOS. Turn poorly formatted references into proper citation templates. Add relevant sections.
  6. - Positively engage the new editor - When you find that the article has been created by a new editor (maybe their first one) or by inexperienced editors, engage them in a positive, mentoring way. Help them learn how to create and contribute better content. Engage them on their talk pages, encourage and challenge them, and most importantly make them feel welcome. If there are policy or guideline issues on the table, don't just refer them to a policy link, engage them in a discussion to ensure they understand what they need to understand. Even if the article is ultimately lost, this positive engagement will help us all turn new contributors into productive editors.
  7. - Add Infoboxes and Nav Templates - If appropriate and they are not there, add and complete as much as possible the appropriate infobox. Add relevant navigation templates.
  8. - Eliminate orphans - Link and cross-reference the article with other articles, lists and categories. Make sure the article appears in the appropriate See also sections of related stuff.
  9. - Eliminate the junk - If there is unsourced or irrelevant content, copyvios, OR or other junk in the article, eliminate it ruthlessly. If there is a question about the validity of content, start a discussion on the talk page and tag questionable content as necessary. Just don't ignore the junk if its there.
  10. - Treat the article as if it was your best achievement - Make changes to the article that will turn it into an article that you would be proud of personally. We know how to do it, we just need to do it.
  • These are good points to consider. But projects are often surprisingly negative, I find, as they seem to develop idiosyncratic ideas about notability. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Wagner (vintner). Colonel Warden (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    • What does that AfD have to do with any project? I only see one person arguing against you, not an entire Wikiproject. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    • There is always risk when inviting others to care about articles you care about, but in my experience, projects generally bring healthy and expert attention to needy articles. Additionally, projects in general convey the sense of community that we want our new contributors to feel part of. In my view, even if we lose an article to deletion, but in the process, through projects or other means, we have positively encouraged a new contributors to continue, then we have been successful.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd add if the name is wrong, move it. I've seen renaming an article de-orphan it, and whilst people should judge the potential of the subject not the cosmetic appearance, I have a sneaking suspicion that some AFD participants are at least subconsciously influenced by things like an error in the article name. ϢereSpielChequers 15:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • An excellent list, though I'm not sure that the ordering is optimal. I would also note that a very good idea when de-orphaning is to see if any material from pages which link to the page could be usefully imported, especially references. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Good ideas, tweaks made.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This checklist is absolutely great. Thanks for adding it. I'm a newbie and wanted to try and rescue an article. I used this list and sucessfully saved an article in less than 24 hours. I have to thank you for adding it. Thanks. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Article speedy deleted even though I removed the speedy tag....

User:Vianello deleted the article Cairo International Model United Nations without any discussion or prior notice... The article was tagged for speedy deletion but I removed the tag as I saw it as notable enough and discussion could be made regarding if it meets the notability criteria... My main concern is why he would delete the article even though I showed interest in discussing notability and if he has the right to speedy delete an article even though I showed interest in discussing notability... Wouldn't that be very discouraging to new users who don't know yet the harsh rules of notability? If this is not the right place to post this please advise me to the right place--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't correct procedure. You should bring it at WP:UNDELETE, they should restore the article without problems, since it was a speedy. --Cyclopiatalk 12:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It was correct procedure on the admin's part: the mistake was the taggers, who replaced the speedy tag after you removed it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Slater

The Steven Slater article was deleted by the closing admin of the recent AFD. It is now being discussed at deletion review. If the deletion is not overturned then I would like the assistance of the members of this project in re-writing a non-biographical article about the event itself. Thank you. Helvetica (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I already discussed that with the closing admin. If we can show that the event has had large impact, then we're good, since no one is arguing that it hasn't had large amounts of coverage. SilverserenC 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FastMail.FM

ARS members, FastMail.FM was speedied; I have tried to create a wikipedia-worthy version at User:Elvey/FastMail.FM. I know it's not precisely ARS' remit, but I come to solicit ideas and/or edits to make it less promotional, so it doesn't get AfD'd in the first place. I cut a feature laundry list, and salesy stuff. Any pointers to highly rated/good pages on similar topics to emulate? --Elvey (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your references are poor - your first is a blog and the second is a forum post. I'd suggest you find and use better quality sources or someone (like me) will likely AFD that article as soon as it hits mainspace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reformated a couple of the references (if that's ok?) and also I recommend you turn the rest of the "further reading" into actual citations. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Some of these Google Books hits might be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Post-archive note: I don't think the first reference (to the Age) is a blog - it looks like a newspaper article to me. There is a reference to a corporate blog (meets WP:RS), and to an introduction to a forum by the forum administrator. But you only get one chance to make a first impression, so thanks for the feedback. WTM: you too. --Elvey (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Stupidity

The same can possibly be done here as I did at Loyalty (AfD discussion). I have my hands full with Baptists. There are sources from philosophers, psychoanalysts, and neurologists to be had. If you feel like writing to combat a "strong delete", now's your chance to make an AFD argument with an article. Just have a care with some sources. van Boxsel's "encyclopaedia" is an anecdote collection that doesn't provide discussion or context, for example. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Ok, I have a question, and I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk. How is the above notice not considered canvassing? The message is certainly not neutral (you are all but asking for a strong keep !vote) and the audience is arguably not nonpartisan. I'm not going to throw a big stink about it or anything, because the article is obviously not going to be deleted. But seriously, how is that appropriate? SnottyWong confabulate 14:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not a request for a vote at all. Read properly. It's quite clear what it is a request for. Uncle G (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Uncle G so disdains the idea of voting at AFD that he does not usually contribute a bold faced Keep/Delete !vote and he did not do in this case either. He is the master of article improvement in such cases and, for another example of his turning a sow's ear into a silk purse, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Pig (2nd nomination), which topic has something to say about traditional methods of vote-rigging.

        My question for Uncle G is why he did not just close the discussion in question. SnottyWong suggested a snow close and there seems little likelihood of dissent. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

        • Because, to be honest, I didn't even think about closing the discussion myself. The thought didn't occur. I looked at the article, and immediately thought "That's going to be one of those unusual rescues." and focussed upon what could be done to improve the article rather than the continuation of the AFD discussion. It's exactly the sort of thing that I'd normally tackle. But, as I said to WeijiBaikeBianji, I'm hung up with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions at the moment, from which we've already gained three new articles (history of Baptists in Alabama, history of Baptists in Kentucky, and The Alabama Baptist) as side-effects of the research that I and several others have put into this, and from which I suspect we might gain yet another article. I'm trying to research the Colorado and Alaska articles in that list at the moment. I still have iki-ningyo to write from sources that I turned up by accident when researching Kaicho (AfD discussion) and I even have society page still on my to-do list.

          I turned up a few sources for the stupidity article (as well as some non-sources, such as the abovementioned), but that's as much as I can do on this one. There is writing to be had, if people want to prove their case with article content. Consider this an opportunity to out-do me, if it motivates. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the message, but this is what I'm referring to: "If you feel like writing to combat a "strong delete", now's your chance to make an AFD argument with an article." Combating a strong delete would involve writing a rationale (i.e. "making an AFD argument", or !voting) for keeping the article, no? Or was this just a request for someone to combat the delete !vote by adding sources to the article (which would seem unnecessary, seeing as how the article is already tagged for rescue, and therefore that request has already been made). ARS itself is arguably already viewed as "legal canvassing" by some editors, but I think your request here has crossed the line. SnottyWong communicate 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like I was mistaken, the article is not tagged for rescue. Struck that comment above. SnottyWong babble 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Given that the article is clearly going to be kept (I'm probably going to go close it myself if no one beats me to it), the alleged canvassing has no particular impact on the outcome. At the same time, the article clearly has potential for improvement. Were this a marginal article or one likely to draw a reasonable assortment of editors to each side (e.g., a fictional character), I think the challenge on the appropriateness would have more merit. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't have as much wiki experience than a lot of you, so I might be wrong. Here's the example criteria from WP:CANVAS, with my comments in red:
"The following behaviours, on the other hand, are regarded as characteristic of canvassing (and may be seen as disruptive):"
  • Green tickY Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner - I see your message above as non-neutral, clearly showing your opinion that the article should be kept, but perhaps that wasn't your intention.
  • Green tickY Posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions – for example, sending notifications only to those who supported a particular viewpoint in a previous discussion, or who state on their user page (e.g. through a userbox or user category) that they hold a particular opinion ("votestacking"). ARS is known to be an inclusionist organization.
  • Red XN Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages) No evidence of this.
  • Green tickY Posting messages to an excessively large number of users, or to users who have asked not to receive such messages. There are 230 members of the ARS, although who knows how many are active and watch this page.
  • Green tickY Posting messages to users or locations with no particular connection with the topic of discussion ("talk page spamming"). ARS has no particular connection with Stupidity (for the most part).
  • Red XN Soliciting support other than by posting messages, such as custom signatures that automatically append some promotional message to every signed post. No evidence of this.
Am I reading those criteria wrong or misinterpreting your message? SnottyWong talk 16:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be missing that he is basically asking people to improve the article. That is what ARS is about, you may hold the view that its all a noticeboard for amassing "votes" - that could be why you are interpreting the post in a manner differently than it was intended. un☯mi 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Your interpretations aren't on target in a couple of ways:
  • "excessively large number of users" really should read "user talk pages", as notifying groups of users en masse via related wikiprojects is generally preferred.
    • FYI, to clarify this, I've changed the text in question to specify "individual users". We'll see if anyone reverts my clarification. Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "no particular connection" is irrelevant, because the article is at AfD. The ARS's scope of interest is indeed solely focused on articles facing deletion... although per above I might argue that it's possibly out of scope since the article is has no reasonable chance of being deleted.
The other two assertions are matters of perennial debate, so suffice it to say your interpretation is not unique, but is held strongly by some and rejected strongly by others. Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear to me whether he's come here to ask people to improve the article (which begs the question, why not just tag it for rescue) or if he came here to ask people to contribute to the AfD. If it's the latter, I don't see how you can't consider that canvassing, especially since he made his opinion known that he thinks the article should be kept. SnottyWong talk 20:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
So what remedy are you looking for, assuming we all accept your interpretation of canvassing for the sake of argument? Certainly doesn't appear to be an ARS problem, because there has been a distinct lack of people rushing to !vote keep on the article in question... Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Not looking for any retribution or any particular remedy, just an acknowledgement of "yes, that was canvassing" in the hopes that it is prevented from happening in the future (on an article that is not such a clear-cut keep). No harm done this time, but it's the principle that matters. SnottyWong spout 21:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Snotty, the world is safe from evil with you around.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Slater again...

As a result of the deletion review, the "Steven Slater" article was undeleted and moved to JetBlue Flight 1052 as a non-biographical event article. This article still needs a fair bit of work, such as including newer sources and analysis. I will try to work on it when I get a chance, and the help of others in improving that article would be useful. Also, per the closing of the deletion review, the article was re-listed at AFD to determine whether or not it meets inclusion criteria as a non-bio event article (WP:EVENT). The AFD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBlue Flight 1052. -Helvetica (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

How does one properly use citations from NewsLibrary.com?

I am trying my hand at rescuing an article, rather than marking it for rescue. I have found a number of citations at NewsLibrary.com but am not sure how to use them properly. I am going to be using {{Cite news}} which has a field for URL but NewsLibrary is a pay site if you want the whole article. Do I just leave the URL field blank in the Cite news template? Thanks for any help. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have access to the paid version, I'd suggest using whatever URL gets you closest to the article. Can you point to an example? A URL is not required for most sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nuujinn. Thanks for the merge vote over at Talk:Distribution amplifier. Anyway, I went to NewsLibrary.com and typed in "Arkansas Alligator Farm and Petting Zoo" in their search box. Sorry I can't give at direct URL as they parse the info funny. The search at NewsLibrary brings up a summary of a bunch of articles, but you must pay to get the entire article. I was thinking of leaving out the URL from the Cite news template because of the paying part. I was wondering if anybody else had come accross this and figured out a "best practice" for this situation. Thanks for the help. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason for why you wouldn't have the URL included in the reference. Per WP:PAYWALL, requiring payment for access to a source does not diminish the reliability or verifiability of that source. You, if you have access to the full access to the article, can even include information in the article that's beyond the paywall of the source and we would have to assume good faith about the included info. SilverserenC 02:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the help. I think this answers my question. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

For Your Interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Armageddon_theology WritersCramp (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody check the Lars Pearson article please?

The Lars Pearson article was tagged for rescue a while ago. I've been working on it for a couple of days, but I don't really know what I'm doing as I'm a newbie. Could somebody please look over my work and comment. Please note that I don't know how to write, so I can't really fix problems in that area. Thanks for your help. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Havent checked all your diffs, but those I did checked out fine:
At least some refs added show sufficient , independent coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. ✔
Good clear writing. ✔
Refs fully support the info added. ✔
Original writing from the source has been nicely paraphrased. ✔
Good formatting and layout.✔

First class work even by the high standards of the Squad. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Many of the sources are to Coe College newsletters, I am unsure about how good a source these are, they seem to me a bit like a press release. Newspapers, books and magazines that mention Pearson would be good.  pablo 11:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
True, but they seem to have already found the best sources, the only result from google news is already added. Hopefully the dedicated coverage from Juice magazine will be sufficient to save the article from destruction. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
"save the article from destruction" - thank you Feyd; you have reminded me how much I dislike the histrionics and hyperbole that abound on this project.  pablo 14:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Youre welcome. According to Bourdieu, the most insidious weapon elites have in establishing control is their influence over communal dialogue – not just about whats said, but especially about whats not said. So if we dont want elitists to overturn out inclusive founding values its important the community rejects their insistence on us only describing the loss of valuable work and information in flat neutral language. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
That's even better!  pablo 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the input, everybody. It looks as though I need to focus on the references for notablility. I will see what I can dig up. Thanks. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Random idea

So it occured to me this morning that there's another area besides AfD where articles go to die on a fairly regular basis and that some of you may be willing and able to rescue articles there. Wikipedia:Copyright problems has articles which are blanked for copyvio or tagged as close paraphrases and then reviewed by an admin after a week to see if there's a clean version in history to revert to or if there's a clean rewrite provided. Even notable subjects can get deleted when there's no usable content, and there are very few regulars so we simply don't have the time to rewrite a large portion of these articles. There's no !voting involved, which keeps the drama down. Anyways, like I said—just a random idea that occured to me. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add {{rescue}} in such cases, specify what you think the article needs, and see what happens! Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently this is all that happens. Oh well. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible for us to make a different rescue template that is directed specifically toward Copyright violation articles and also put as a separate list on the main page for it? I don't think the Article Rescue Squadron should just be for AFD discussions, but for any area of Wikipedia where articles are deleted that should have been improved and saved. SilverserenC 21:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Got a job for you guys

There is some article rescuing to be done. Alan Liefting has recently been PRODing a large number of articles about novels. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem, if not for the fact that he seems to be almost indiscriminate in the novels he prods. For example, he proded Will Grayson, Will Grayson. I removed the prod, but the article hasn't changed from what it was before, it had those sources prior. However, those sort of cases are few.

The bigger issue is that a number of the proded articles have no references, yes, but are very clearly notable because of the references that could be added. For example, Faithful Place, which had no references before I came in. So, i'm asking you guys to go through Alan's contributions for the past few days and de-prod the articles that are clearly notable (and maybe improve the ones that he put up at AfD). Please note that if you deprod the articles without improving them, which you are allowed to do, Alan is likely to list them at AfD, so make sure you watchlist the articles you deprod so you can keep track of that.

Note: I am not saying that you should go through his contributions and de-prod all of them and vote Keep in all of the AfDs. There are a few novels that he proded that I found to be non-notable, such as The Omega Scroll and Dance of Death (novel). Those should be deleted. I just want you guys (and gals) to go through his contributions, throw the article titles into Google News and see if anything pops out. If you get a number of reviews that show the notability of the article, take the necessary steps therein. If you don't, then leave them be. SilverserenC 15:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll be starting from the bottom of this page and i'll be working my way up through it. This seems to be back when he first started PRODing novels, so no need to go further back than that page. Though I would note that further back also shows a number of PRODs for companies, which seems to be what he was spreeing through before he got to books. It's probably too late to get to most of them though. SilverserenC 20:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Remember, any prod should be automagically restored per request to the deleting admin or at WP:REFUND. Of course, like everything else in the cleanup process, please be careful to only do that for things that 1) you believe to actually be notable, and 2) that you're willing to invest the time in. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that he misused the prods in many cases. I only found a small handful (about 5) that I would have even considered prodding, however, in general, he should have put many of these to AFD, and on ones I think their might be a fruitful afd conversation I suggested he afd them in the edit summary. Sadads (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"Misused" is a pretty strong word for an "easy come, easy go" process like PROD. Yes, he failed to follow BEFORE, but read what I said to him on his talk page about that. Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, editor with occasional deletionist proclivities speaking. It was me who speedily kept the article on The King of Torts. Yes, even as a fitful prodder, I'm amazed by the amount of this person's prodding. However, I wonder if he might sometimes have a point. And no, not a "point" in the "WP:POINT" sense, but a reasonable point. Of course, you're within your rights to tell him to take his deletion recommendations to AfD (and it may be tempting to do just that when you're pretty sure that the AfDs will fail and his approach will get its comeuppance). But can we agree that, though necessary and even salutary at times, AfDs consume a lot of time? If they'd instead been requests for redirects, a number of his prods (though not that for The King of Torts) would seem arguably beneficial. If a minor if decent author writes a minor if decent book, the article about which has a potted plot, a link to the author's website, and precious little else, then all that's worthwhile can go on the page about the author. If editors later dig up reviews and so forth, then the article on the novel can be resuscitated, revised and augmented. Redirects at least merit consideration. -- Hoary (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%. PRODs and AfDs remove articles and their histories from view by non administrators, while redirects and merges leave that article history intact, so that someone with an inclination to do so can undo the redirect and fix the inadequacy (real or simply perceived) which led to the redirect or merge in the first place. PROD/AfDs require admin intervention or doing things over from scratch. It's my opinion that when an item has a valid merge or redirect target (character to "list of characters in...", element to book, book to series (or author), series to author, product to company, episode to season or show, etc.) it is not actually eligible for "outright" deletion per WP:ATD, unless the title itself is somehow improper. Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles i've taken care of

I'm just going to list the articles that I have covered, just to keep track of them. Anything not on this list likely still needs work.

Oh, and thanks for all your help, guys, in advance. SilverserenC 17:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Re List of cooperatives

Just discovered and tagged this one. Anyone can help by first removing any and all of the non-notable entries. The next step being expanding the description of the remaining notable entries. Have started from the top but please feel free to help start cleaning it up. My available time is short for the next couple of days. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP Death March War Re-Enactors Getting Revved Up Again?

I hope not!! See Wikipedia:AN#Huge backlog of tagged unsourced biographies of living persons (also see Template talk:Prod blp#Proposal to remove the newly created restriction).--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh...what is with these users and their need of deadlines? It's totally against the point of Wikipedia. I guess i'll have to get to work on these again at some point. I remember reducing on of those months from a couple hundred to just 10 a while back. I guess i'll pick another month and start doing that again. SilverserenC 21:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
...seriously? I mean...seriously? My response to that is, "Then why are you here?" SilverserenC 04:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Ooo...no, bad idea. I would get rid of that, Milo...you're going to get some flak if you don't. :/ SilverserenC 06:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It got collapsed, no worries. But I still think its wrong to enlist admins to threaten to delete articles.--Milowent • talkblp-r 01:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

article for rescue

Hi guys - would Jimbo Matison be appropriate to tag for rescue? Tduk (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I found a few things to add, and did add them. Not a lot of interest in that AfD discussion, I see. Current sourcing is borderline, but probably just enough for a keep.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rescuing a Featured Article

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page]] and [[:Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1]]

Such an opportunity doesn't come along too often. In fact this is probably the first time ever. But you have an opportunity to rescue an article that was, a mere couple of days ago, the featured article on the main page. I've rapidly whipped together a draft in a user sub-page, going back to what we think to be the last non-infringing version of the article and working forwards again. If the FA people are happy with that re-start (the FA Review discussion page is hyperlinked above) then we can rescue it further and bring it up to something that Secret (talk · contribs) (who appears to have volunteered) can take and carry the rest of the way through the FA Review process. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • There are hundreds of former featured articles. Trying to keep articles at this level seems like the torment of Sisyphus. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Consider it a PR effort for the ARS then. Most deletionists see nothing more than the ARS moving stuff from "deletable crap" to "crap that barely meets inclusion guidelines"; right or wrong, that's the perception. So, an opportunity to help KEEP an FA a FA is certainly far more effort, but may attract other editors to the project, thus providing a good return on the investment. Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Note that I was the editor who drew the attention of the community to the plagiarism in this case. I didn't notice any deletionists thanking me for my observation nor anyone else for that matter. The FA process generally seems to be dominated by prima donnas who seem quite jealous of intruders and each other. It might be more productive to assist the DYK process which seems better aligned to our goals and activity. When we rescue a stub at AFD, it is often quite feasible to go a bit further and get it up to DYK level. See Kilburn Priory or Ace in the Hole (Cole Porter song) for current examples of potential DYKs arising from AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm pretty sure that "Colonel Warden has a good point." is not an expression of jealousy. ☺ 205.175.113.16 was ahead even of you. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
          • The case of 205.175.113.16 is quite mysterious. Their comment was quite accurate but was suppressed within minutes and the IP address was blocked. The blocker won't say who it was and, as the IP address is registered to the University of Washington, it's not clear how their identity can be so certain. Treating a good faith contributor as an unperson seems quite typical of the intense politics which is found at FA. If one enters this snake pit, you should be glad to escape alive and, if you go into it expecting plaudits, you are likely to be disappointed. DYK is generally more rewarding and that seems to be why it is now under attack. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
            • We have a number of banned former accounts who often edit anonymously and are reverted on sight by checkusers, without disclosing their identity on-wiki but generally providing it, together with the reason for the secrecy, to anyone who asks by email. This has nothing to do with FAs. In this case Risker's attention was probably drawn to the IP because she was watching the article. I am slightly concerned because Risker had previously encouraged Rlevse to work on that FA and so has subjective reason to feel guilty about the events. But I am not even concerned enough to have asked her for the information. I am inclined to assume good faith, i.e. that Risker had specific information making this block a routine thing, and that it just didn't occur to her that this might be a justified attack on Rlevse.
              PS: It think I have found out independently who it is: a Washington-based user who has been banned for 5 years for a systematic outing campaign. I guess you know who I mean. The user has a good knowledge of Wikipedia and often makes good contributions to discussions, but with his insistence on outing anonymous users just for the sake of it he is putting himself firmly outside our norms. Hans Adler 08:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
            • DYK is under attack because it's the easiest way to get things prominently on the main page and some things that go through DYK really shouldn't. The format has been diluted, with totally boring hooks pointing to borderline notable articles being the rule nowadays. Boring hook or boring, non-notable article is fine, but not both together. As a result there are so many successful DYK nominations that they have to be rotated several times a day. This greatly annoyed me when I put Karlsruhe pyramid there, because given the appearance of "pyramid in the center" and "vault of the city founder" in an article on a major German city I would have liked to see some reactions both from Europeans and from non-Europeans, which is a bit hard when an article is up only for 6 hours and most readers have given up on reading DYK anyway. Hans Adler 08:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • I know who the banned user is, not the user you thinking about. Secret account 17:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • In defence of FA. Standards have risen over the last few years as they have in the project generally. No-one is concerned about maintaining former DYK links, but FA status involves that bronze star on the article and being on lists of Featured Articles. There has been a certain amount of angst over the delisting of some FAs that have degraded over time or simply not kept up with these rising standards, but I for one would be uncomfortable if we had adopted a policy of once an FA always an FA. I don't know if we still have any FAs unimproved since before the change to inline cites, but if we didn't have a policy of demoting articles that don't meet current standards then we would now have many featured articles that were not as good as some of our good articles and many of our unsuccessful FA submissions. There is a broader issue here as to whether the standard at FA is one that we should be aiming to raise every article to, or whether a uniform standard of quality is incompatible with an encyclopaedia written by volunteers. I incline to the latter view, not least because I don't want our best articles to be constrained by or limited to a uniform quality standard. As for the relevance to the article rescue squadron, I see our role as rescuing articles that fail or are alleged to fail the minimum standards of this site. Rescue involves getting those that can or should be rescued to a point above that minimum standard, so if the minimum standard was altered it would have a large impact on the work of the article rescue squadron. Providing we don't decide to implement a uniform standard of quality, and change rescue to require every article we rescue to become an FA, then I don't see the relevance to the ARS of the minimum standards for an FA. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I doubt there are many (if any) articles that were previously rescued that are now FA's. Most articles that are rescued are on the edge of notability, meaning there aren't a lot of sources or significant coverage on which to base the article. It's a lot easier to get Jupiter to FA than Smelly socks. I fail to see the connection between FA and ARS as well. SnottyWong spout 14:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that few articles go from rescued to FA, as very few articles make it to FA as a percentage, or even should. Some articles that are rescued are on "the edge of notability" but very many are not, its just that the article is in bad shape and the nominator assumes its not notable, e.g., my recent experiences with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaFayette Center. Its mind-boggling to me how often notable subjects get deleted, but its been this way since early 2006.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
What is more boggling is how many articles get created without any references. If folks want to get better PR for ARS, I'd suggest a concerted effort to source unreferenced BLPs, there's a huge backlog there. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The ARS has an excellent reputation outside wikipedia, all reliable sources praise it.[citation needed] --Milowent • talkblp-r 20:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
There has been a huge drop in the backlog of unreferenced BLPs this year and a number of ARS members have been involved in the big concerted effort to make that happen. For example Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue started as a spinoff from the Article Rescue squadron to reference particular months of the backlog, and the memberships of the two groups still have a high degree of overlap. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Inclusionist Piece in New York Times

The last word has been had.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This piece in yesterday's new york times[2] praises an article (Angry Birds) that was slated for speedy deletion and then rescued by an editor. The focus of the piece is on the quality of the article and how editors respect and apply WP:OWN. Interestingly, the author says "as a companion to the stuff that was born on the Internet, Wikipedia — itself an Internet artifact — will never be surpassed." Internet content, it seems to me, (memes, software, viral vids, etc.) is the very type of detailed content that is often targeted for deletion. Outside wikipedia, you find people very appreciative of wikipedia's coverage of such things.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article on an outsider's perspective of WP. Not really seeing any inclusionist/deletionist slant though. SnottyWong verbalize 14:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There's stacks of pro-Inclusion journalism on offer over at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists . FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If I were to be a very mean and cynical deletionist I would say that it's a journalist's way of life to know and disseminate information inappropriately so one would have to expect them to be inclusionists.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that link, Feyd, I sensed that was the case but hadn't seen that compilation.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
ha. thanks for quoting my post feyd. I have several more that I found since then. Maybe you can all create a subpage somewhere?
Telegraph
Wikipedia should delete the deletionists Shane Richmond July 7, 2009 Telegraph.
Los Angelese Times
"Wikipedia's community has become so rushed, so immediatist, that it is not willing to allow embryonic articles even a tiny modicum of time to incubate" - Los Angeles Times: Wikipedia wars erupt
Powerhouse Museum
Seb Chan of the Powerhouse Museum about why his institution decided to collaborate with Flickr instead of Wikimedia Commons:
"Whilst Wikipedia and Wikimedia are, in themselves, exciting projects, their structure, design and combative social norms do not currently make them the friendly or the protected space that museums tend to be comfortable operating in."[3]
Guardian
"The two groups [deletionists and inclusionists] had been vying for control from early on in the site's life, but the numbers suggest that the deletionists may have won. The increasing difficulty of making a successful edit; the exclusion of casual users; slower growth – all are hallmarks of the deletionist approach." --Wikipedia approaches its limits Bobbie Johnson guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 12 August 2009.
Academic studies
My favorite is the academic studies though, (although granted, they are not about deletion) I have about two dozen of those:
EQUALITY
As anyone who has edited any amount of time here, knows, there is no WP:EQUALITY:
"There are contributors who consistently and successfully violate policy without sanction"
Academic studies about Wikipedia Explicit vie for ownership
Harvard Independent
""After eliminating other candidates, the form that fits best [wikipedia] is that of bureaucracy." [4]
Infoworld
Wikipedia topics are selected for inclusion on the basis of their notability, which is subjective and fosters discrimination and elitism, "the very things the Wikipedia is against." "Unlike academic journals and other legitimate reference sources, the Wikipedia has created new and anonymous elite 'editors' and administrators"InfoWorld: Wikipedia breeds 'unwitting trust' says IT professor
CARTOON
Cartoon about deletion.[5] Okip 05:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Ever seen WP:BATTLE? SnottyWong spout 06:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
He has certainly been directed there, once or twice, I believe.
Ikip, when you next swing by, that 'vie for ownership' thing focuses on a debate in 2006, none of the editors in question are very active now. It'd be good if you could find something more recent/relevant, if you want to keep making whatever point it is you're driving at there. pablo 12:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Its possibly those editors who have been aggressively chipping away at our people friendly, pro knowledge sharing values that need to see advice in WP:Battle, not heroes like Okip who have been resolute enough to stand in their way. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Unhelpful. Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes Feyd, that's right; he's a "hero" because he "fights" on the same "side" as you in your "battle".  pablo 14:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to get heated about. Its not a battle to cite and quote sources in the media that criticize wikipedia policies and actions which favor deletion of some content. This is important feedback that arguably is the most accurate reflection of views of wikipedia's reason for existing - its readers. If Snotty wants to cite sources which show otherwise for purposes of continuing the discussion, fine. But citing WP:BATTLE only encourages needless drama.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The point is that I don't have a huge list of evidence or sources at the ready with which to start such an argument at the drop of a hat, because that kind of battle would be at the bottom of the list of arguments in which I'd be interested in participating. SnottyWong express 15:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Snotty - If you strip out the "us v. them" kind of ideology that has grown up over these issues, you'll see its not really a battle, but a debate over whether the way articles get deleted now is optimal for the project. These are the kind of discussions/battles you are participating in every day at a micro level by nominating articles for deletion or voting !delete in AfDs.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
That's true, and the escalation of the simple discussions and actions necessary to edit an encyclopaedia into "fights" and "battles" has largely been manufactured by those with a vested interest in prolonging those conflicts.  pablo 15:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Snotty:
Wikipedia:No angry mastodons:
"Sometimes editors perceive a personal attack where none actually exists. Usually this confusion happens when an editor misreads a personality conflict into a detailed post about a content disagreement...When people are involved in disputes there is a tendency to take offense, sometimes called "mock outrage," at statements that are either not intended as slights — or that transgress the norms of discussion only in a technical sense — but are not in fact hurtful to the target of the comment."
Snotty, you seem intent on widing this dispute you originally started on ANI regarding Colonel. The ANI is closed, but that does not stop you continuing the argument first on my talk page, and now here.
Confusing stances
On the ANI you complain that my criticisms of your behavior have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Yet here you launch into a "battle" argument which has nothing to do with this posting here. I was adding media and scholarly accounts about wikipedia. My comments were not addressed to you at all.
On my talk page, you template me, accusing me of personal attacks on ANI, yet you call me a "troll" in the very next response.[6]
Please hat this discussion
This whole argument that you continue to escalate has brought up a lot of user names I would just as soon never see again. Life is to short to have to regularly deal with these "bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work"[7], especially since Jimbo himself encourages and fosters such behavior.
I have removed your posting on my talk page. I suggest Snotty gets the WP:LASTWORD here, and then someone who has not been involved in this discussion hat this discussion. I am logging out now, and I won't be coming back for a very long time, if at all. Okip
That will be a huge loss to the squad and Wikipedia as a whole if you dont return, and a lucky gain for whatever other good causes you turn your attention to. Thanks for all you've done for us. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)15:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, bye. (← last word). SnottyWong converse 16:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_49&oldid=1136063121"