- 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. Heavy snow in forecast. (non-admin closure) SD0001 ( talk) 11:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list
Previous Discussions:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This project is a violation of the WP:CANVAS guideline which states "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions" If people have a general interest in deletion discussions, we already have a listing of them at WP:AFD. Despite what is said in the code of conduct about following canvassing guidelines, it is well known that people participating in this project generally vote Keep for almost all articles, so listing them here is soliciting Keep votes (ie. rescue the article=Keep) Rusf10 ( talk) 21:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: Rusf hit it on the head: the project is a haven for ill-conceived keep votes. p b p 22:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. This has been a perennial issue. But the basic premise of the project, that keep-worthy pages should be improved rather than deleted, is a good one. When individual editors violate the canvassing guideline, they should be dealt with as individuals, rather than shutting down the project. I do hope that administrators who close AfD discussions will be attentive to any possibility of canvassing when they evaluate the consensus. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. This is nonsense. And this is the wrong forum for this type of argument, which is a bare conclusion completely devoid of proof. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 23:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- The word "nonsense" prompts me to say that I recognize that there really are legitimate concerns about the ways that some editors participate in the squad, and that I hope that editors here, and indeed in any deletion discussion, do not over-emotionalize the discussion. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
23:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- And it is without merit as established at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. It was nonsense then, and it still is. This is just another attempted deletionist power grab.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
23:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'll alert the national guard. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- What is the correct forum then? You want proof? Your own user page proves my point. It says "This user is an inclusionist" and so are the vast majority of members to the squadron. That's why it is considered a partisan audience. And you saying "this is just another attempted deletionist power grab" goes even further to prove my point. This project itself is a way to WP:GAME the system.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you wonder why people question the faith of the ARS members, consider this edit and this one p b p 01:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- And it is without merit as established at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. It was nonsense then, and it still is. This is just another attempted deletionist power grab.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
23:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- The word "nonsense" prompts me to say that I recognize that there really are legitimate concerns about the ways that some editors participate in the squad, and that I hope that editors here, and indeed in any deletion discussion, do not over-emotionalize the discussion. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
23:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Consider a recent example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual behaviour in organisations. I put this on the rescue list because it was a notable and educational topic. There wasn't much response and the few ARS regulars that commented did not !vote Keep as Rusf10 suggests. Note also that there are some editors who follow the list who seem contrary and so tend to !vote in opposition. Either way, the numbers involved are tiny – the vast bulk of the ARS membership seems quite apathetic and does not participate at all. AfD is generally quite moribund and needs participation to generate a consensus. Discussions are highlighted in a variety of ways -- deletion sorting, project notifications, watchlists, &c. The more the merrier as it's quite discouraging to see discussions relisted again and again because no-one can be bothered to comment. Andrew D. ( talk) 23:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- As another fresh example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Haine. The article Richard Haine was improved by good collaboration by several ARS members and this was recognised by the nominator who withdrew. The article has just appeared on the main page as a DYK and so the encyclopedia has clearly benefited. Andrew D. ( talk) 00:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep "Canvas" is bad faith. I concur with Andrew, I have been made aware of AfDs through ARS and !voted delete, I am not a rubber stamper but !vote the way I think is right. Most of the time I don't !vote at all because I don't care or don't have time. And when I do !vote Keep, almost always do something to improve the article at the same time, I put effort into it. -- Green C 00:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment To respond on the merits, Article rescue squad is first and foremost about improving articles saving those that can be saved through substantial improvement. From WP:AFD to WP:DYK. See for example:
On 21 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Richard Haine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dickie Haine flew in the RAF's first night fighter patrol of World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Haine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Richard Haine), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
And I've done this many times with other articles. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 00:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep People who use the list don't say vote in everything nominated. Some say delete, some don't vote in those they don't think can be saved. Some things have been nominated without anyone going to them at all to participate, ignoring them and focusing on others. It has never been used for canvasing. Perfectly valid wikiproject. Dream Focus 03:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Although I have long been aware of this project, I have never joined up myself because I find the positions of many of its most prominent members to be a bit too aggressively inclusionist than I like. I have long positioned myself as a moderate on the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum and am quite proud of the articles that I have saved from AfD by improving them. But I frequently recommend deleting articles about topics that I believe are not notable. I see nothing improper about this project even though I am not a member. Deleting it looks like a vindictive power grab to me, and I cannot go along with that. Canvassing? Gimme a break. Advocating inclusionism is not canvassing, since that philosophy, in moderation, created this encylopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment :
Ongoing related discussion at ANI
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
08:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention that this is the third time for this exercise. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination) 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 09:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural keep
Yes, this atrocious WikiProject, which seems to serve little purpose except for POV-pushers, self-promoters, and people with no intellectual curiosity to find people who will defend their articles no matter what, should be retired, but MFDing the list itself is not the right way to accomplish that.Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Posting the above opened me up to yet more harassment and abuse from the self-proclaimed "inclusionists" whose "keep" arguments here are based on ILIKEIT rationales rather than proper procedure, including one who was extremely lucky nary a week ago not to get indeffed for hounding me. Fuck this whole project and those who defend it in this grossly inappropriate manner. I don't give a shit. Please just leave me alone already. I'm not retracting my procedural keep !vote, but please, for the love of god stop harassing me over the rest of what I wrote, let alone my edit history going back almost a decade, as some self-proclaimed "inclusionists" in this project appear to be all-too-ready to do. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural keep. Whatever one thinks about ARS, the fact is that almost every WikiProject keeps a list of articles tagged for deletion, so that members can decide whether to participate in these processes. There is no conceivable policy-based reason to deny one WP what others are allowed to have. If (and only if) there is consensus one day to retire ARS itself, then such subpages have served their purpose and can be retired as well. Regards So Why 14:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep also WP:SNOW I think this is a bad faith nomination by an afd nominator who takes an afd personally. It smacks of sour Grapes by the nominator. There is no WP:CANVAS occurring. The members of ARS choose to improve the article if they can...usually when a nominator did not do a proper WP:BEFORE... members do not simply ivote. I myself have nominated articles for ARS and the ARS members did not help improve the article or ivote. The members decide if they can improve articles - if they cannot they do not reflexively vote. See Richard Haine for example of ARS work. Also see my many afd votes to see my many delete, merge, or draft votes. Lubbad85 ( ☎) 14:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Deletion is a content decision. This case is basically a conduct dispute, about the behavior of some "inclusionist" editors whose conduct in deletion disputes is disruptive, such as casting aspersions on deletionist-inclined editors, and canvassing like-minded editors for !votes on deletion disputes. Having viewed the list of articles, my opinion is that many of the listed articles should have been improved and kept. It appears that the proponents of deleting this list are using this list as a target of their anger against misconduct and disruptive editing by inclusionist editors. There are conduct issues concerning disruptive inclusionist editors and disruptive deletionist editors that need to be addressed. This list is not the way to address those issues, and MFD is not the forum in which to address those issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Keep – Deletion of this list is not the way to address conduct issues about deletion discussions, and this list does more good than harm. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Conduct issues involving deletion discussions are sufficiently common that draconian remedies are in order. The community should impose Community General Sanctions on editors whose conduct about deletion is disruptive. (This includes editors who attack other editors, and editors who make too many XFD nominations.) If the community does not act, ArbCom should accept the next dispute involving deletion, and should impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions on editors whose conduct about deletion is disruptive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Observations - I don't actually know that this is the best place to discuss this, but it's striking that even many of the people !voting keep, apart from members of the project, agree that the project is problematic. That seems to be a common theme anytime I see this project come up. So while I don't expect the project will be deleted, I'll weigh in here just to emphasize that I'm yet to see, over the years, a persuasive explanation of how the main purpose of the project is anything other than canvassing. Subject-based WikiProjects cover coordination for article improvement. Article alerts, deletion sorting, article banners, etc. exist to draw attention to deletion discussions. ARS functions just like any one of those, except that what its members have in common is not a particular subject-matter interest but a greater-than-average likelihood of !voting keep and/or a lower-than-average likelihood to !vote delete. Posting to a project where the only defining feature of its members is which way they're likely to !vote is canvassing. That's not to say they necessarily do so uncritically or automatically, but that it's the common tendency, and anyone posting to this list would know that (want people to !keep with minimal chance of !deletes, post to the ARS list and see what happens). If the goal is improvement, not just !voting, why wouldn't it be more at home on a subject-based WikiProject or any of the many article improvement/coordination projects we have that aren't based on influencing a particular !vote? I will say that AfD does need more participants, and my objections here aren't to the members of this project themselves -- just coordination among people based only on keep/delete tendencies. We're probably due for another discussion of how to improve participation at AfD, because it could use more participation. Maybe improvements to articles nominated for deletion could be included in the WikiCup, or a separate drive. Maybe we can take more steps to address long-term patterns of poor nominations, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- 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)*
- Comment - If you feel that an article has shortcomings but could be cleaned up and better sourced through a team effort, that's great! Go ahead and list it at ARS with a clear explanation of how it could be improved (as stated in the instructions). This is a perfectly acceptable way to improve articles, and many ARS entries follow this format.
- Examples:
"Mayor of a relatively large city in India. Coverage might exist in non-English sources."
"Child star who - once notable - should always be notable. Can we find sources where there is more than a passing mention of the subject?"
"I suspect this subject may be notable, but I can't support preserving the article as written, given its unsourced claim that the subject is "renowned" (apparently the result of reading too much into a colorful translation of the title of a book that has a short article on him); however, if anyone has quick access to that book and could fix the article, I'd probably change my opinion"
- If you feel that an article is already perfectly fine, doesn't need any improvements and shouldn't be deleted, go ahead !vote at AfD but please don't list it at ARS. This is nothing more than an attempt to bring in other editors who agree with you, AKA canvassing, and many ARS entries follow this format.
- Examples:
"I've not seen the new Godzilla movie yet but suppose that the local real estate takes a pounding. Meanwhile, here in Wikipedia, someone is trying to knock down the towers of Jersey City!"
"What's in your battle bag when you turn out to rescue another article? It's good to think of a shortlist of policies, references and sources with a stock of canned text and templates for the recurring issues we encounter. We should start another tab for this here, as a checklist of good ideas and resources"
"Nominator has a deletionist mentality"
"nominator seems to have an issue with the fusion of myth and reality"
(referring to Yours Truly)
- It is the "this article shouldn't be deleted" comments give ARS a bad name. The project could be steered in a better direction by enforcing core requirements such as Focus on improving content and immediately removing entries that don't follow the instructions. The project really does seem to be a mixed bag of article improvement and inclusionist canvassing, which could be corrected by addressing individual behavior issues/personal attacks and changing the general culture. –
dlthewave
☎
16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- An example of editors simply trying to keep an article, instead of improving it, can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost lands. The final four "Keep" !votes, which likely tipped the balance from "Delete" to "No consensus", are from ARS participants who showed up after someone posted "nominator seems to have an issue with the fusion of myth and reality". None of these editors actually made an effort to improve the article (aside from reinstating problematic content) or define an appropriate scope for the topic. – dlthewave ☎ 05:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Ivanvector and per this not being the right way for the OP to handle his grievance against ARS. Opening this MFD was an unhelpful escalation. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The broad brush casting of aspersions on the operation of WP:Article Rescue Squadron ought to stop. It is untrue. I would use other words to describe it, but decorum bars use of legal words.
- Here is a good example of what should be and was done:
 | This project page was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | A fact from Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 June 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
And the article was improved by global participation (see the AFD discussion), and continues to be improved to this very day. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 22:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Heavy snow in forecast. (non-admin closure) SD0001 ( talk) 11:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list
Previous Discussions:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This project is a violation of the WP:CANVAS guideline which states "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions" If people have a general interest in deletion discussions, we already have a listing of them at WP:AFD. Despite what is said in the code of conduct about following canvassing guidelines, it is well known that people participating in this project generally vote Keep for almost all articles, so listing them here is soliciting Keep votes (ie. rescue the article=Keep) Rusf10 ( talk) 21:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: Rusf hit it on the head: the project is a haven for ill-conceived keep votes. p b p 22:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. This has been a perennial issue. But the basic premise of the project, that keep-worthy pages should be improved rather than deleted, is a good one. When individual editors violate the canvassing guideline, they should be dealt with as individuals, rather than shutting down the project. I do hope that administrators who close AfD discussions will be attentive to any possibility of canvassing when they evaluate the consensus. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. This is nonsense. And this is the wrong forum for this type of argument, which is a bare conclusion completely devoid of proof. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 23:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- The word "nonsense" prompts me to say that I recognize that there really are legitimate concerns about the ways that some editors participate in the squad, and that I hope that editors here, and indeed in any deletion discussion, do not over-emotionalize the discussion. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
23:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- And it is without merit as established at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. It was nonsense then, and it still is. This is just another attempted deletionist power grab.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
23:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'll alert the national guard. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- What is the correct forum then? You want proof? Your own user page proves my point. It says "This user is an inclusionist" and so are the vast majority of members to the squadron. That's why it is considered a partisan audience. And you saying "this is just another attempted deletionist power grab" goes even further to prove my point. This project itself is a way to WP:GAME the system.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you wonder why people question the faith of the ARS members, consider this edit and this one p b p 01:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- And it is without merit as established at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. It was nonsense then, and it still is. This is just another attempted deletionist power grab.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
23:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- The word "nonsense" prompts me to say that I recognize that there really are legitimate concerns about the ways that some editors participate in the squad, and that I hope that editors here, and indeed in any deletion discussion, do not over-emotionalize the discussion. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
23:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Consider a recent example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual behaviour in organisations. I put this on the rescue list because it was a notable and educational topic. There wasn't much response and the few ARS regulars that commented did not !vote Keep as Rusf10 suggests. Note also that there are some editors who follow the list who seem contrary and so tend to !vote in opposition. Either way, the numbers involved are tiny – the vast bulk of the ARS membership seems quite apathetic and does not participate at all. AfD is generally quite moribund and needs participation to generate a consensus. Discussions are highlighted in a variety of ways -- deletion sorting, project notifications, watchlists, &c. The more the merrier as it's quite discouraging to see discussions relisted again and again because no-one can be bothered to comment. Andrew D. ( talk) 23:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- As another fresh example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Haine. The article Richard Haine was improved by good collaboration by several ARS members and this was recognised by the nominator who withdrew. The article has just appeared on the main page as a DYK and so the encyclopedia has clearly benefited. Andrew D. ( talk) 00:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep "Canvas" is bad faith. I concur with Andrew, I have been made aware of AfDs through ARS and !voted delete, I am not a rubber stamper but !vote the way I think is right. Most of the time I don't !vote at all because I don't care or don't have time. And when I do !vote Keep, almost always do something to improve the article at the same time, I put effort into it. -- Green C 00:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment To respond on the merits, Article rescue squad is first and foremost about improving articles saving those that can be saved through substantial improvement. From WP:AFD to WP:DYK. See for example:
On 21 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Richard Haine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dickie Haine flew in the RAF's first night fighter patrol of World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Haine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Richard Haine), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
And I've done this many times with other articles. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 00:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep People who use the list don't say vote in everything nominated. Some say delete, some don't vote in those they don't think can be saved. Some things have been nominated without anyone going to them at all to participate, ignoring them and focusing on others. It has never been used for canvasing. Perfectly valid wikiproject. Dream Focus 03:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Although I have long been aware of this project, I have never joined up myself because I find the positions of many of its most prominent members to be a bit too aggressively inclusionist than I like. I have long positioned myself as a moderate on the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum and am quite proud of the articles that I have saved from AfD by improving them. But I frequently recommend deleting articles about topics that I believe are not notable. I see nothing improper about this project even though I am not a member. Deleting it looks like a vindictive power grab to me, and I cannot go along with that. Canvassing? Gimme a break. Advocating inclusionism is not canvassing, since that philosophy, in moderation, created this encylopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment :
Ongoing related discussion at ANI
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
08:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention that this is the third time for this exercise. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination) 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 09:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural keep
Yes, this atrocious WikiProject, which seems to serve little purpose except for POV-pushers, self-promoters, and people with no intellectual curiosity to find people who will defend their articles no matter what, should be retired, but MFDing the list itself is not the right way to accomplish that.Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Posting the above opened me up to yet more harassment and abuse from the self-proclaimed "inclusionists" whose "keep" arguments here are based on ILIKEIT rationales rather than proper procedure, including one who was extremely lucky nary a week ago not to get indeffed for hounding me. Fuck this whole project and those who defend it in this grossly inappropriate manner. I don't give a shit. Please just leave me alone already. I'm not retracting my procedural keep !vote, but please, for the love of god stop harassing me over the rest of what I wrote, let alone my edit history going back almost a decade, as some self-proclaimed "inclusionists" in this project appear to be all-too-ready to do. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural keep. Whatever one thinks about ARS, the fact is that almost every WikiProject keeps a list of articles tagged for deletion, so that members can decide whether to participate in these processes. There is no conceivable policy-based reason to deny one WP what others are allowed to have. If (and only if) there is consensus one day to retire ARS itself, then such subpages have served their purpose and can be retired as well. Regards So Why 14:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep also WP:SNOW I think this is a bad faith nomination by an afd nominator who takes an afd personally. It smacks of sour Grapes by the nominator. There is no WP:CANVAS occurring. The members of ARS choose to improve the article if they can...usually when a nominator did not do a proper WP:BEFORE... members do not simply ivote. I myself have nominated articles for ARS and the ARS members did not help improve the article or ivote. The members decide if they can improve articles - if they cannot they do not reflexively vote. See Richard Haine for example of ARS work. Also see my many afd votes to see my many delete, merge, or draft votes. Lubbad85 ( ☎) 14:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Deletion is a content decision. This case is basically a conduct dispute, about the behavior of some "inclusionist" editors whose conduct in deletion disputes is disruptive, such as casting aspersions on deletionist-inclined editors, and canvassing like-minded editors for !votes on deletion disputes. Having viewed the list of articles, my opinion is that many of the listed articles should have been improved and kept. It appears that the proponents of deleting this list are using this list as a target of their anger against misconduct and disruptive editing by inclusionist editors. There are conduct issues concerning disruptive inclusionist editors and disruptive deletionist editors that need to be addressed. This list is not the way to address those issues, and MFD is not the forum in which to address those issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Keep – Deletion of this list is not the way to address conduct issues about deletion discussions, and this list does more good than harm. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Conduct issues involving deletion discussions are sufficiently common that draconian remedies are in order. The community should impose Community General Sanctions on editors whose conduct about deletion is disruptive. (This includes editors who attack other editors, and editors who make too many XFD nominations.) If the community does not act, ArbCom should accept the next dispute involving deletion, and should impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions on editors whose conduct about deletion is disruptive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Observations - I don't actually know that this is the best place to discuss this, but it's striking that even many of the people !voting keep, apart from members of the project, agree that the project is problematic. That seems to be a common theme anytime I see this project come up. So while I don't expect the project will be deleted, I'll weigh in here just to emphasize that I'm yet to see, over the years, a persuasive explanation of how the main purpose of the project is anything other than canvassing. Subject-based WikiProjects cover coordination for article improvement. Article alerts, deletion sorting, article banners, etc. exist to draw attention to deletion discussions. ARS functions just like any one of those, except that what its members have in common is not a particular subject-matter interest but a greater-than-average likelihood of !voting keep and/or a lower-than-average likelihood to !vote delete. Posting to a project where the only defining feature of its members is which way they're likely to !vote is canvassing. That's not to say they necessarily do so uncritically or automatically, but that it's the common tendency, and anyone posting to this list would know that (want people to !keep with minimal chance of !deletes, post to the ARS list and see what happens). If the goal is improvement, not just !voting, why wouldn't it be more at home on a subject-based WikiProject or any of the many article improvement/coordination projects we have that aren't based on influencing a particular !vote? I will say that AfD does need more participants, and my objections here aren't to the members of this project themselves -- just coordination among people based only on keep/delete tendencies. We're probably due for another discussion of how to improve participation at AfD, because it could use more participation. Maybe improvements to articles nominated for deletion could be included in the WikiCup, or a separate drive. Maybe we can take more steps to address long-term patterns of poor nominations, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- 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)*
- Comment - If you feel that an article has shortcomings but could be cleaned up and better sourced through a team effort, that's great! Go ahead and list it at ARS with a clear explanation of how it could be improved (as stated in the instructions). This is a perfectly acceptable way to improve articles, and many ARS entries follow this format.
- Examples:
"Mayor of a relatively large city in India. Coverage might exist in non-English sources."
"Child star who - once notable - should always be notable. Can we find sources where there is more than a passing mention of the subject?"
"I suspect this subject may be notable, but I can't support preserving the article as written, given its unsourced claim that the subject is "renowned" (apparently the result of reading too much into a colorful translation of the title of a book that has a short article on him); however, if anyone has quick access to that book and could fix the article, I'd probably change my opinion"
- If you feel that an article is already perfectly fine, doesn't need any improvements and shouldn't be deleted, go ahead !vote at AfD but please don't list it at ARS. This is nothing more than an attempt to bring in other editors who agree with you, AKA canvassing, and many ARS entries follow this format.
- Examples:
"I've not seen the new Godzilla movie yet but suppose that the local real estate takes a pounding. Meanwhile, here in Wikipedia, someone is trying to knock down the towers of Jersey City!"
"What's in your battle bag when you turn out to rescue another article? It's good to think of a shortlist of policies, references and sources with a stock of canned text and templates for the recurring issues we encounter. We should start another tab for this here, as a checklist of good ideas and resources"
"Nominator has a deletionist mentality"
"nominator seems to have an issue with the fusion of myth and reality"
(referring to Yours Truly)
- It is the "this article shouldn't be deleted" comments give ARS a bad name. The project could be steered in a better direction by enforcing core requirements such as Focus on improving content and immediately removing entries that don't follow the instructions. The project really does seem to be a mixed bag of article improvement and inclusionist canvassing, which could be corrected by addressing individual behavior issues/personal attacks and changing the general culture. –
dlthewave
☎
16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- An example of editors simply trying to keep an article, instead of improving it, can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost lands. The final four "Keep" !votes, which likely tipped the balance from "Delete" to "No consensus", are from ARS participants who showed up after someone posted "nominator seems to have an issue with the fusion of myth and reality". None of these editors actually made an effort to improve the article (aside from reinstating problematic content) or define an appropriate scope for the topic. – dlthewave ☎ 05:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Ivanvector and per this not being the right way for the OP to handle his grievance against ARS. Opening this MFD was an unhelpful escalation. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The broad brush casting of aspersions on the operation of WP:Article Rescue Squadron ought to stop. It is untrue. I would use other words to describe it, but decorum bars use of legal words.
- Here is a good example of what should be and was done:
|
| This project page was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
|
| A fact from Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 June 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| |
And the article was improved by global participation (see the AFD discussion), and continues to be improved to this very day. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 22:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- 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.