The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Cosensus to Keep and that MfD is not the right solution for the issues raised; no need to prolong (non-admin closure) Britishfinance ( talk) 09:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list

This is just inviting conflict and is being used mainly to WP:CANVASS this somewhat ill-considered group. jps ( talk) 02:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep Sadly the nominator is quite angry (erased my entry on the ARS list twice) and immediately initiated this MfD. The rescue list has been nominated three previous times: First Nomination, Second Nomination, Third Nomination, and not we are now at the fourth nomination: perhaps the nominator could have listed these by slowing down. The nominator uses hyperbole and an accusation of canvassing, in addition to calling the group ill-considered. FYI: The group has improved quite a few articles, and one can look in the archives on the rescue list page and see the successes and the many failures. Lightburst ( talk) 02:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• comment I think there's some case for why this might be a useful project, but the introduction to the list instructs editors to include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia when listing an AFD discussion. The next sentence tells them to comply with WP:CANVASS, but I still can't figure out how they can avoid campaigning whilst also posting an AfD notice that makes an argument for how editors should vote. Unless they have some sort of special dispensation from the rules on publicizing discussions, that instruction seems untenable. Nblund ^talk 02:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep for reasons cited in previous nomination. 7&6=thirteen ☎) 03:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are things that get nominated by regular members that have no one else show up to say to keep the article but them.  No one rushes over to vote keep on everything they see.  I spent a lot of time searching through Google news results and other sources to see if an article meets the notability guidelines.  Some rewrite entire articles to fix them.  Ample examples of that. Dream Focus 03:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - nomination argument is a false premise. If an article is nominated for deletion, gets listed here, and the listing attracts editors interested in improving the article to resolve the deletion concern, that's a good thing. That's what should happen. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia, remember? Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 15:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Deleting a list is the wrong way to address any concerns about the ARS. The nominator evidently thinks that the ARS is a well-intentioned but misguided activity. This MFD nomination is more clearly a misguided well-intention effort. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep (but!) the instructions really seem like they need work. Offering a !keep argument in an AFD notice is inevitably going to draw objections from editors, yet the list tells people to do exactly that. The talk page indicates that this is a perennial problem. The instructions probably should just tell editors to stay mum on the question of notability if they intend to draw participants to the AfD, and project participants should be willing to reword their notices if they receive good faith criticisms. I'm fairly sure this wouldn't fly anywhere else on the project, so I don't see any reason why it should fly here. Nblund ^talk 03:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.