Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article please follow these instructions. Template:Multidel

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 Main page Rescue list Current articles Article Rescue guide Newsletter Members Discussion page 

For articles listed for rescue consideration, see Article Rescue Squadron Rescue list

There are currently 519 articles tagged for deletion at Articles for deletion.

If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article please refer to tips to help rescue articles and ARS Guide to saving articles.

Note: To ensure the most recent listings in the pull-down menus below are displayed, click here:

Articles

Articles currently tagged for deletion

• Main page: Category: Articles for deletion

Articles currently proposed for deletion

• Main page: Category: Proposed deletion and Category: All articles proposed for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination) Notability. Alleged WP:COI. Acerbic discussion. Counting merger discussions, a previous deletion, etc., looks closer to a 4th nomination. Sourcing was poorly done. I've fixed references and links. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

• Wikipedia: Article Rescue Squadron - Biographies of living persons
• Article Rescue Squadron – BLP rescue volunteers

Articles with topics of unclear notability

• Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability – lists topics that are unclear regarding their notability.

Content

Files for discussion

• Main page: Wikipedia: Files for discussion
  

Categories for discussion

• Main page: Wikipedia: Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

• Main page: Wikipedia: Templates for discussion
  

Redirects for discussion

• Main page: Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion

Stub types for deletion

• Main page: Wikipedia: Stub types for deletion

Stub categories for deletion
Category Category:Stub categories for deletion not found

Miscellany for deletion

• Main pages: Wikipedia: Miscellany for deletion and Category: Miscellaneous pages for deletion

Article alerts

• Main page: Wikipedia: Article alerts

Article alerts for ARS
The Article alerts for this page are no longer delivered, because this project does not employ a banner or category that the bot can use to find relevant articles.

DRV rescue template?

I think a DRV rescue template should be made as well for such articles as Alien and Predator timeline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Problematic. ARS is about improving articles up to a state where they will pass. For DRV the articles are deleted, so can not be accessed. Taemyr (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not always as some DRVs are for articles that were kept. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, DRV is suppose to be about the AfD itself not the article per se. If there is a DRV in process, however, I'm not opposed to improving an article during DRV so those looking can see improvements in process. Banjeboi 02:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought I agree that a modified template for DRV is appropriate as DRV is also used to discuss an article's merit so continuing to improve it to address concerns raised in both AFD and DRV would make sense. Maybe {{Rescue-DRV}}? Banjeboi 00:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a minor reform to Afd; keep some merge discussions out

I've initiated a proposal at the deletion policy talkpage to speedy close some fresh nominations that are primarily about merging articles rather than deleting them, and moving the discussion to the article talkpage. Input welcome. Skomorokh 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal: apply WP:BEFORE to speedy close in certain cases.
  • Discussion is here. Banjeboi 01:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars project

I'm not suggesting that every rescue should get a barnstar but it does seem like honoring those who have saved an article could use some recognition. I think the first step might be expanding the list of articles rescued, which, of course, means we figure a good way to track those. Then list them and possible evaluate if someone(s) greatly improved the article vs, the AfD discussion was generally for keeping. Along with the list would be our suggested guideline for issuing barnstars as well as the barnstar gallery. Banjeboi 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rawr. I want MOAR barnstars! I think this is a good idea. I know User:Ecoleetage hands them out now and again for people who rescue his nominations from deletion (he's very open about being proven wrong when it means an article will be saved and improved), you should see if he wants to help. Protonk (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at clearing up the barnstar section above first then proceed from there. Banjeboi 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Call in the bot

I keep thinking a daily bot to help list articles with the rescue tag on this talk page would be a good idea, with each article given it's own heading so those invested can mention specific help needed. The bot could potentially also list when it was listed as well and do an update when AfD closes. Any thoughts? Banjeboi 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if a bot is the best way. For there to be apoint of this we need that mentioning of the specifics that are needed. A template that can be subst'ed in with that information would likely be better. Something like User:Taemyr/Rescuehelp, although that was intended to go to the talk page of the nominated article. Taemyr (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think both would help, although I'm cautious about template creep i think something basic enough to link to the AfD discussion and date it started and maybe a notes section so we can include a DRV or "discussion extended" comment. Banjeboi 23:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put one below as an example, I'm thinking a bot could do a daily run and add a section for each article that doesn't have one. It could also add a helperbot note when AfD closes or the rescue tag is removed. In a addition we can configure auto-archiving of resolved items. Banjeboi 00:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User page tools

If you are anything like me, you use your User page to keep track of things to do. Or a dashboard or some subpage. If so, here are some tools you can use to see how bad the ARS backlog is:

There are currently 0 articles tagged for rescue in the Article Rescue Squadron.

transcluded from {{User:JimMillerJr/Userboxen/ARS alert}}

If you use a dashboard with category counters you can grab the code that produces a table line like this:

ARS flagged for rescue

0

I've been on a table and template kick for the past week or so and made these for myself, but thought I would share. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 23:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I enlarged slightly and added a second one for total AfDs and saved them at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Dashboard. Banjeboi 01:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal mention

If you haven't seen it, the Wall Street Journal did a rather long article on Wikimania, and it mentions ARS. Enjoy. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Who owns ARS tags

I've gotten into a few discussions (as has Judgesurreal) over who can place and remove rescue tags. Is there a feeling in the project about this? The feeling I am seeing is that anyone can add them but no one can remove them, even for articles that don't fit the criteria for rescue. That isn't really fair in my opinion. What does everyone else think? Protonk (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

People are clearly placing tags in violation of the rules for placing tags, which are very, very clear;

What the Rescue template is not for * Articles that are not yet or may never be notable", which must mean that notability must not be the question at hand; if there is a question about it, the tag is inappropriate. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think an article that has the "help me!" tag up for 3? 4? days without the addition of a reliable source (when that's the article's weakness) should have the tag removed, the article deleted, and its hometown razed. Well, two out of three.

On a related note: the AfDs I'm involved with are a narrow sliver of all of Wikipedia's articles for deletion, but my perception is that few articles tagged for rescue receive any significant improvement from members of this project -- with the one notable exception of Le Grand Roi, but even then he doesn't always go into the article itself to spruce it up. I'd suggest members of this project consider appending WP:ARS or some such to the end of edit summaries when they've worked on an article they stumbled upon because it's been flagged for rescue. I think part of Allementando's/Frederick Day's assertion that ARS is for AfD keep-canvassing stems from so much article "rescuing" being done through AfD !votes not complemented by a clear ability to recognize rescue-squad activity in the aticles themselves. --EEMIV (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On the original topic, anyone can add a rescue tag to an article. I have personally removed them when used on prodded articles, or those that are not currently in AfD. Those articles belong at the WP:WICU. I see no reason why any editor should stop from removing an inappropriate tag, ARS or any other, when they find it. As to the comments above from EEMIV, I have voted on AfDs that were flagged and already rescued before I got to see them. As an example, see Berlin Circle (traffic circle). That article had already had its notability well established before I got to the AfD discussion. It had more than sufficient sourcing added before I saw it. I believe I added a WikiProject banner to the article so that more people would be able to expand it. What else was I supposed to do? I expressed my opinion at AfD that the burden had been met and I moved on. I don't generally work on fiction articles at all, so you won't find an AfD comment from me on the bunch that have been tagged over the last month or so. The scope of the project is to get articles up to the minimum standard to avoid deletion. Usually all that is needed to do that is to add one or two sources and the job is done. Patch 'em up, and move 'em out. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One more note, the line about "are not yet or may never be notable" seems to me to correlate directly to the CSD criteria. If notability is a question for consensus, the article goes to AfD. If the article is in AfD, then removing the rescue tag is wholly innappropriate. Speedy candidates should not have rescue tags, and it should be removed from them. Any article in AfD is withn the scope of ARS. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your own rules say that it is inappropriate to put the tag on articles with unestablished notability, or in the projects own words, "not yet notable". What could that possibly mean other than it is inappropriate to tag articles with notability issues. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In the past I've been reverted for removing the rescue tag as well. In my view: it's a bit out of hand, to see so many things in AFD with the tag on it. I consider it canvassing just to get keep votes. Before the AFD of many of the articles: no one cared about it. But instantly once it hits AFD, the mindset seems to be "oh no it's going to be deleted, let's slap the tag on it". Perhaps I'm being a little harsh, but it's how I feel about the matter. The tag should be used when necessary, not all the time. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Judgesurreal777 makes a valid point that Articles that are not yet or may never be notable isn't very helpful; AfD is sussing that out ARS isn't. I've removed it as it would also seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL - that is how are any of to say a subject might never be notable. As to who should remove them? The closer of the AfD. When the AfD is no more the tag is removed. It's rather argumentative in almost any other respect. AfD generally takes less than a week. The rescue tag is only to be added onto articles after an AfD has started. Both tags and possibly the article will be gone within days. Accusations that it's canvassing have been readily dismissed in the past and frankly wouldn't matter as AfD is not a vote but a process to determine consensus based on policy. I sometimes feel the tag isn't the most appropriate but then also accept that items I've tagged others don't agree with. I also accept that regardless the AfD process only runs for so long and either an article is kept or not. Generally the number of articles tagged for rescue has remained quite stable, roughly 10-20 at one time. As a percent of how many articles are at AfD at one time my guess this is pretty small. Banjeboi 01:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing about "are not yet or may never be notable" is that it it's a judgement call, and AfD is the place that it's assessed. So, slapping a rescue tag on an article of questionable notability, which is being AfD'ed at the moment, seems to be a plea for assistance in soliciting notability support. I've yet to see the rescue tag work to "save" an article which had no redeeming qualities. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think my problem is more with tags being applied to a rash of articles that are at AfD but aren't really in need of "rescue" or being rescued. Editors should be able to disagree over whether or not an article is 'suitable' for rescue. To put a REALLY fine point on it, LeGrand has a particular view of what 'merits rescue' and I want to know if it is the intent of the project for this to be the de facto view. Protonk (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What is that view in a nutshell? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That articles which are not hoaxes, libelous, pedophilic or original research are suitable for inclusion and that some very large subset of that category of articles is suitable for rescue. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ARS does not judge what articles are worthy or rescueable. Anyone can and does add the rescue tag but, like all actions on wikipedia, should be done so in good faith. If an article is going to be deleted because there just isn't enough to keep it around then the rescue tag won't make much of a difference. Likewise adding other tags don't by themselves sprinkle majic editing dust so that suddenly everything improves but the tags do alert readers and editors that there are specific issues to be addressed and the rescue tag encourages those who read it to take action. The rescue tag sometimes attracts the right combination of editors who help improve an article in time to sway the AfD. Does it always do that? Hardly, but neither do we try to discriminate in order to boost our average by only accepting article we know we can fix and keep at AfD. Would it simplify my life if only terribly interesting topics - to me, that is - were presented on my timeframe to try to rescue? Perhaps. But I likely wouldn't have worked on pixel artist, Chris Crocker and a few dozen other articles were they not AfD'd and then tagged for rescue. Really, this is just a tag and will be gone in less than a week. If LeGrand or any other user is adding a rescue tag that doesn't change, in any way, the nature or scope of what this project does. If they are more inclusive then the next editor that really has no influence here as each person simply does what editing they feel is meaningful to them. This is not an inclusionist or deletionist project - we are neutral and try to improve wikipedia by rescuing articles from AfD and all editors are welcome to take part. Banjeboi 06:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So if anyone can add the tag, anyone can remove the tag, right? Can there be a good faith disagreement about what merits a rescue tag in an article? Because what I'm seeing here is that someone can add the tag but that it is not kosher to remove it. Protonk (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In principle anyone can remove a tag. By doing so you are saying that improving the article is impossible. If the primary reason for deleting the article is notability feel free to remove the tag if you have checked every independent reliable source on the planet. Taemyr (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No way. That's ridiculous. The Ultramarines tag was placed on a space marines chapter after a dozen or so (out of 20) had been redirected or deleted in previous AfD's. Reliable sources that might have been found on some of the space marine chapters would have cropped up in the months past. The article wasn't in need of rescue--by this I mean that the article wasn't languishing for want of editor effort--it was never going to be notable unless the notability guidelines changed. To say that removing the tag requires some impossible evidentiary burden is silly. Almost all articles are AfD's for notability, should we tag them all now and ask others to prove a negative in order to remove the tags? Protonk (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but unless there is evidence to the contrary we should assume good faith. So when someone places a tag on an article we should believe that he thinks that sources exists, and that he places the tag to request a last ditch effort to find those sources. If this is a stretch we might talk to the person placing the tag asking him why he felt the tag was warranted in order to make sure he understands what the tag is for. Ultimately the tag in it self does little damage, needless tagging means that there is a bit clutter in our category, and as such a bit more work for those who are working on rescuing articles. The upshot of this is that when you remove a tag you are saying that your belif that no sources could exist trumps the other editors belief that those sources might exist. Taemyr (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We can turn that on its head. Clearly the idea here is that an editor's belief that sources exist ALWAYS trumps my belief that sources don't exist. I don't think there is some inherent value judgment in removing the tag. it is just like any other part of the article. I feel that LeGrand adds these tags in good faith. I have a good faith disagreement over his addition of some tags. Is it the view of the project that my good faith disagreement is disruptive in some way?

I understand the tag is harmless and most tags on articles which aren't to be rescued get deleted with the article, but there are two problems with that. One is the reason I left the project in the first place. The tags (as it is right now) are worthless. Totally without value. When I see an article with an AfD notice and an article with an AfD Notice AND an ARS tag, I can pretty much assume that there is no difference between the two. I'm trying to come back to the project, but this is basically pushing me away. I envision ARS tags as a clear signal to ARS members and other contributors that an article will really improve with some hard work and that improvement will cause it to be saved from deletion. Tagging every article that gets nominated for WP:N blows that right out of the water. The second reason is that the tagging really puts the lie to the argument that ARS is deletion stance-neutral. ARS isn't about commenting in AfD's but if the majority of articles tagged are hopeless cases that are going to be deleted because of WP:N then what do we say (Hell, the wall street journal says we are 'against' deletionists)?

So I mean....that's all I need. If the consensus is that ARS tags are placed at individual discretion and that removal of them is "improper" (I dispute this because of WP:OWN, but whatever), then I should probably stop watchlisting this project and leave, eh? Protonk (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying you can never remove a tag. However I think there is an inherent value judgment in removing the tag because when you remove the tag you are making the call that the article is not rescue worthy on behalf of those members of ARS that have not yet seen the article. If you personally feel that the article is not rescue worthy you can shrug and move on. The converse of this is when an editor is when an editor places the rescue template he is bringing the article to the attention of a set of editors who want to attempt to rescue articles. The decision of whether or not it's worth spending time on improving the article is still up to the individual editor. For this reason I feel that the bar should be much higher for removing a tag than what it is for placing it. However, as you are quite correct in pointing out, indiscriminate tagging hurts the project. I do not believe that any member will dispute this. No policy or guideline will bar you from removing a tag, WP:OWN, WP:IAR, and WP:BOLD upholds your right to do what you feel is best. However, most project members will feel that the extent of indiscriminate tagging is small enough that the category is still a useful tool. I am aware that the last sentence is a tautology, editors who feel otherwise will tend to choose not to be a member. But this means that most members will feel that usually it will be best if you leave the tag in place.Taemyr (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right. I've left the project and now I guess I'm done with my flirtation about coming back. What I can say in closing (for me at least) is that all ARS has of value is editor time. If I can't be a part of it and really zero in on something to save, something genuinely needing rescue, then it isn't any more helpful than cruising AfD. Protonk (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

<--Outdent Like Protonk, I'm also disappointed by the articles I've recently seen flagged for rescue. I try to stop by the articles for rescue page whenever I have a bit of extra time for wiki fun, and instead of seeing encyclopedic articles to save, I find myself wading through a bunch of star wars and warhammer 40k ones. That said, I don't think the answer is for people to start removing tags that someone has placed there thinking the article was rescue worthy. Edit warring over the tags isn't a good idea, and I think it's important to give the benefit of the doubt to fellow rescuers in what they think could be rescued. Currently, my way of dealing with tags I disagree with is just ignoring them and moving on.

However, tagging unencyclopedic articles dilutes the value of the tag, and it makes it harder for rescuers to find articles that truly are encyclopedic. In practice I've recently felt like we may need to more concretely define what we mean by encylcopedic topics. The whole point of ARS is to separate out the Arathis (about an East African religious movement in the 1920s and 1930s) from the Snotlings (about a creature in Warhammer 40k). When people tag Snotlings, it means less attention gets paid to the Arathis, which in my opinion is quite harmful to the project, even if meant in good faith. While I wouldn't go around taking down tags, I'm currently disappointed by the articles being tagged, and I would fully support an effort to tighten up the tagging guidelines. That said, if I'm alone in this feeling and others feel tagging warhammer creatures doesn't harm ARS at all, I'm obviously willing to bow to consensus. Vickser (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What is unencyclopedic? There are a boatload of articles on topics that each of us (except for perhaps the most rabid of inclusionists) don't believe merit Wikipedia mention. I can guarantee that yours and mine will differ, as they will both differ from any third editor's. The thing about "unencyclopedic" is that it's essentially what CSD (which doesn't involve ARS) and AfD (which does) are for. CSD is for things that are clearly and unequivocally not for encyclopedic inclusion (at least not in current form), AfD is for things where good editors may differ. Leaving tags in place until AfD closes ensures that any ARS-monitoring editor sees all the articles so tagged, and from that point he or she can and should exercise discretion to work on those that he or she finds most salvageable. Thus, by only removing tags at the close of an AfD, we ensure that ARS remains neutral--each editor is free to use his or her own discretion and work on what he or she sees fit. The downside of that is that editors have to sort through things that they don't consider encyclopedic. I consider that the lesser of evils. Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you that removing tags is trouble, since, you're right, two people can disagree about some interpretations of encyclopedic, and if it's just two people disagreeing, I'd rather err on the side of keep the tag up. What I'm suggesting is more, "Write better tagging guidelines, so people won't be tagging things like the 40K articles." With the recent tagging that's been happening, the number of bad articles tagged has discouraged me from going through the list. Of course, if everyone else does think ARS is appropriate for fictional in-universe articles and wants it to be that way, I'm not going to keep objecting, but I do want to express my concern that over-tagging ends up being bad for the project. Vickser (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the tagging, Arathi looked like this: [1]. It's really two completely different articles, and two completely different topics. Getting the WoW article deleted would in no way interfere with the creation of the current article. Taemyr (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And while this is the direction of the discussion, maybe we should also remove Popular culture from the list of related WikiProjects and put WICU in its place. I just noticed that it was added back in April, and I don't see the two projects as related. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 17:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that change.

Taemyr: I did some edits on Arathi, but I didn't check the history enough to see all the WoW stuff. I wouldn't have supported tagging it at that point in time, and you're right that what's essentially happened in the afd is that the old article got deleted and a completely new article about a different (notable and encyclopedic) subject has been written in its place.

My main point is that the rescue tagging of articles about fictional, in-world topics seems to be inappropriate because they're being deleted for reasons outside the scope of ARS. The issue with the warhammer, star wars, star trek, etc articles is that they may or may not violate WP:PLOT, which is, essentially, a talk page issue and outside the scope of ARS. ARS is for articles about "perfectly notable topic[s]" that might get deleted because of lack of sources, or context, or POV issues, or things of the like which can be fixed with article writing. If the main issue with the article is that it violates WP:Plot, it's not in the scope of WP:ARS, and I think we should rewrite the project page so they stop getting tagged. Vickser (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To me that seems quite pointy. We tag and rescue articles except these which we just don't like? To remain neutral, IMHO, we allow the tag to go on any article at AfD, and like all of wikipedia we assume good faith that the tagging is done because someone believes the article can be rescued. Removing the rescue tag seems quite contentious - decreeing yourself the arbiter and judge for which a community AfD is in process to do - and all to take a tag off that will only be there for a few days.

I don't recall a time when every article was rescuable but personally I've saved a few that were deemed unsalvagable. I'm a bit concerned that folks are getting too passionate about what is at heart a basic effort to save articles. If someone tags an article that isn't rescuable - guess what? It ain't gonna happen! If you go through the list and see one that interests you, then check it out. If you feel it's worth your energy then do what you feel is best. If not, move on. We don't have to "love" our articles because they aren't ours to begin with. Someone will always tag an AfD article for rescue that you're not into and possibly isn't ever going to be rescued - just like people tag articles for AfD that will never get deleted. This happens and it's part of the process of wikipedia - mistakes are made and consensus helps correct many, if not most, of them. There's probably an essay somewhere about "relax it's just wikipedia". Stress is not helping anyone edit better. Choose the articles you want to put energy into and don't stress on the rest. Banjeboi 23:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me, the rescue tag can't be removed unless the AFD is over. If it gets removed earlier: a revert happens, due to disagreement. Revert warring doesn't solve anyhing. So I think from now on: if the tag does get removed, people should just leave it off. If you want the article rescued so badly: then improve it how you would like. Many people improving an article is better, but revert warring over a tag should stop. I still think part of this is canvassing, just to get the article kept. The truth of the matter is: the article was probably rarely noticed before the deletion debate, so now editors are worried it could be deleted (even though it "might" be encyclopedic"). The tag just seems to be an excuse for people to include many things. While rescue has helped several articles: it's been put on ones that don't seem to have any notability here. Above, it was stated this wasn't an inclusionist project... but I think it's safe to say it is. Perhaps I'm overreacting a little, but this is how I feel about the tag and the project itself. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How about creating sections for article type. It sounds like some don't want to wade through Star Wars articles to find whichever type of article they like to save. Maybe fiction, people, places, etc. I guess it may have to be sub cats since they're included by the ARS page by virtue of their category. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RobJ1981, that does seem to me you may be over-reacting, this entire project is not an inclusionist project even if some people wish it were - it isn't and many of of were ready to walk away when if a proposed merger with the inclusionism project went through. And no, the tag really should not be removed except by the AfD closer. To set oneself up as the judge and jury when a consensus process is determining the suitability for an article is quite disruptive. State your case on the AfD page and allow others to do so as well. At most the tag will be in place as long as the AfD tag, less than a week in the vast majority of cases.

Peregrine Fisher, I'm not sure I would support that as being that helpful, mainly as these articles are only listed for about a week, if that. It also would, IMHO, imply a heightened (or lowered) status for some. I've been listing, usually, with the first sentence of the lede. This would seem to indicate the nature of the article enough to know if it's fiction, people, places, etc. I'm uncertain that spending more time to suss out categories would be beneficial and that the lede sentence itself isn't clear enough to convey the information. Is there something different that may work? Banjeboi 02:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the first sentence? I've been looking at Wikipedia:Article Rescue_Squadron#Articles currently tagged_for_rescue - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You can watchlist the page Current articles which is transcluded to the top of this talk page. Banjeboi 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Narrowing the project's scope is not necessarily non-neutral. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Benji, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it being "pointy" to try and clarify the scope of where the ARS tag is appropriate. Generally pointy is a reference to WP:Point, but I'm not quite sure how that would fit in this context. If you could explain it, that would be great, because right now I'm just not quite understanding what you mean by it.

The project has always been about editing article pages of topics that are "perfectly notable" but flawed enough that someone has taken them to AfD. This could be because of lack of context, NPOV issues, lack of references, or other such issues, and that's what ARS is here to fix. Many of the recent taggings have been of articles where the deletion case centers not on those fixable things, but on interpretation of WP:Plot, and at what point in-world articles cross too far into WP:Not. That's not the sort of problem ARS can fix: it's the sort of problem that needs to be hashed out on talk pages. (Which, while a fine pursuit, is also what ARS is emphatically not about.)

Not every article at AfD is rescueable, but every article that gets a rescue tag on it is supposed to be. The ARS goal of the ARS is to "ensure that articles about notable topics do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing." If it's not a notable topic and couldn't be rescued in the first place, it shouldn't have an ARS tag. And while it's not a big deal if an article gets mistagged every now and then, several times I've checked a majority of the articles in the category have had deletion debates about policy and WP:NOT. Since the project page explicity states that ARS is not for "Articles that are inappropriate content for Wikipedia per What Wikipedia is not", I think this is an issue we need to deal with. Vickser (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. This is getting more than a bit confusing but I'm happy to keep responding in hopes to resolve some issues. I've moved these comments from the middle of other comments and I'd welcome new sections if the topic is going to branch out unmercifully in several directions.

A Man In Black, you state "Narrowing the project's scope is not necessarily non-neutral" which sounds, well philosophical, but did you have a proposal to limit this project in some new way? If so it might be more helpful to start a thread specific to any proposal.

Vickser, what I was referring to as pointy, perhaps not the best word choice, was in some way restricting what the tag could be used on. From the beginning, and to this day, the good faith edict has been that the tag is for anyone to apply to AfD'd article that may concern a notable subject and was possibly worth rescuing. Having rescued a few myself that others, in at least one case - everyone, saw as unworthy, I know that AfDs often operate not on what an article can become but only what is there at that moment. I don't fault folks for lacking the vision that an article has more potential than what is there but I do think this speaks to how many borderline can be greatly improved and we are here to help articles not act as judge and jury to which ones are allowed to have the rescue tag. I'm quite stunned that an article, presumably one that will be deleted within days is seen as somehow worse off, in any way, because another tag is on it. That it's a tag to encourage improvement specifically addressing AfD concerns would seem to be welcome. I'm not sure if that is expressing it clearly. Banjeboi 10:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell where my reply belongs in the thread, because someone fiddled with the indentation.

As I recall, I was referring to "To remain neutral, IMHO, we allow the tag to go on any article at AfD, and like all of wikipedia we assume good faith that the tagging is done because someone believes the article can be rescued."

It's not unreasonable to say, "This project is focused on saving artices that have [such and such quality]," and remove the {{rescue}} tag from articles that don't have that quality. The specific case in point was fiction articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this back on track, I had moved the thread down to ensure I was staying with your point. I think this idea goes better towards modifying the "what the tag is not for" section to instead supply more common sense rather than trying to limit scop. Some fiction articles are completely fine and the issue might be all the aquatics articles that are being cleaned out in some way. Part of this issue is, IMHO, a series of articles being targeted a few at a time, instead of what I think would be less contentious of simply merging some. Twelve articles within the universe of ____ might be better as a list but instead 5 are prodded then 2-3 are sent to AfD separately. I feel this abuses the AfD process instead of simply working with other editors to clean the articles up, centralize a discussion and post a link to the series of articles, "these are a mess and here's a solution that may work", it takes a different tactic but ends up with more cohesion and less angst and lessens the load on those working within AfD to address more complex articles that take time to address. Banjeboi 19:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add my voice of concern as well. Without pointing to any specific AFDs, I am increasingly seeing the "rescue" tag applied to articles which promote a lot of "Keep: notable, sources exist somewhere !votes. (Not to accuse everyone in the rescue squad of bad faith. I'm sure most of you, maybe even all of you are actually trying to improve articles, and the !vote-spamming may be a coincidence, or the misunderstanding of a few squad members at worst.) I think there needs to be some kind of check or balance on the rescue tag for that reason. Reversion is an option, but I'd like to have some kind of precise standard to know when reversion is appropriate, to remove the tag. The only other alternative I can think of is excessively bureaucratic and combative: a "AFD scrutiny" tag for AFDs that are being spammed by !votes with incoherent arguments with no evidential basis. I'd hate to see things go down that path, but the growing abuse of the "rescue" tag needs some kind of reasonable and semi-precise limit. Randomran (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, these issues seem to have been covered already. !votes alone don't do much, at all, and closers have gotten pretty sophisticated to see through them going either for or against an article. I still see removing the tag as causing more problems than simply leaving it there until the AfD is closed, which, generally is only a few days. Might help and unconvinced it's causing any real harm. Banjeboi 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Eliminate the follow up section

Can we get rid of the section about articles that need follow up? Articles that are not in AfD are outside the scope of this project, and I see no reason to increase the length of this page with that list. Once the articles are rescued, they don't belong here. There are other projects for that. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The follow up is actually stuff we need to do, like adding to the rescued list or checking for possible issues. With the heated discussion above i haven't taken the time to do more clean-up work around here. In general I quickly archive anything that needs no follow up and, yes, I don't really see us making a formal process of passing off articles to WICU although, in theory, we could. I'll try to catch up in the next day or so. Banjeboi 23:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've collapsed it and moved the follow-ups for the rescue list to that article and added a link as well. This should help keep this talkpage more clean. Does this address your concerns? Banjeboi 01:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Tag Removal Section?

I thought the debate was still going on, but I saw the following had been added to the ARS project page:

It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before the AfD is completed. The AfD process usually takes less than a week and the tag is in place for less than that. Let the AfD closer remove it when the AfD tag is removed or the article is deleted. In all cases remain civil and assume good faith that other editors are working to improve articles.

I don't feel this reflects the debate above, which is still not yet at consensus. What would people think instead of:

In all but the most clear-cut cases, it is generally not a good idea to remove a rescue tag before the related AfD is completed. Remember that it was added in good faith by another editor who did believe the article was about an encyclopedic topic and able to be rescued. Try having a civil discussion with the tagging editor about why you feel the article is outside the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron. That said, you should feel free to employ common sense about removing tags applied to articles that clearly fall under what Wikipedia is not.

What would people think about that? Or any other wording suggestions? I'm not crazy about the recent addition with its across the board statement that removing the tag is always unhelpful and occasionally disruptive. I'd also be fine with just removing the brand new addition and leaving it as it was, with the idea that our fellow wikipedians and ARSers are perfectly capable of using common sense when dealing with tags. Vickser (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the addition isn't needed. The part about it being "possibly disruptive" is just nonsense in my view. It's not a crime to remove the tag. I think people should personally work on fixing the article, instead of slapping a tag on it just to notify the ARS about it. This view of "oh no it's getting deleted, I must ask for help by putting a tag on the article in AFD!" seems a bit unecessary and paranoid in my view. Also from the project page, I find this very hard to believe: Articles that are inappropriate content for Wikipedia per What Wikipedia is not. (that's listed under what the template is not for). People argue about What Wikipedia is not at times, so someone adding the tag could easily say something along the lines of "I don't feel it violates that policy, so the tag belongs". While another could disagree and remove the tag, thus resulting in another revert war over the rescue tag. Simply put: people should discuss things and think things over, BEFORE just slapping a tag on the article in AFD. Also note: if the AFD looks like it is swaying in delete: that doesn't instantly mean it needs a rescue tag either. Perhaps just copy the article to your user space and improve it, then get the article reinstated later. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to finding better and neutral ways to word both these areas both frankly I see removing the tag as simply antagonizing. Either the article will be saved at AfD or not - either way both the AfD and rescue tags will be gone in less than a week. If someone can't leave these tags in place for such a short time it really makes me question their abilities to handle other conflicts that will take far longer to sort out. Wikipedia is not just quick removal of items one doesn't like it's more about prolonged improving of articles and the project as a whole. Perhaps instead of citing "What Wikipedia is not" we could instead encourage editors to use common sense and only tag articles they believe can and will be improved in the short time span available. RobJ1981's suggestion about userfying is not something I think many consider so I would support including that as well. Also posting a message on the ARS talk page if one is unsure. In any case I see very little benefit it removing the tag once it's there. Let the process run its course, if someone is serially tagging then address that person specifically if the tagging is seen as detrimental to this project or wikipedia in some way. I still see removing the tag prematurely as more disruptive than adding the tag to articles perceived as undeserving. Banjeboi 11:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not antagonizing to remove a tag. So what if the AFD process is short? That doesn't justify the rescue tag has to remain until the AFD ends. This simply makes me think people are indeed trying to canvass AFD participation. As I stated before: I feel this is indeed an inclusionist project, due to the behavior of the people placing the tags (and revert warring them back on, when someone removes it). An AFD tag is required on an article until it remains, however a rescue tag isn't required until the AFD ends. I suggest the next time you see a rescue tag removed early: don't revert, and just do what you want to clean the article. If the article gets deleted in AFD, so be it. Life goes on. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The question here is, why should you remove the tag? This wikiproject have no special powers that prevents you from doing so. But there is very seldom any reason for the removal of the tag. Taemyr (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Removing a tag in general, perhaps, is not antagonizing, but removing an article rescue tag is like stopping CPR before the patient is declared dead. It is my considered opinion that removing the 'rescue' tag is the most antagonizing tag removal on Wikipedia, because it's one editor saying "This piece of excrement can't be saved, and you're wasting everyone's time by pleading for help doing so." Even fiction might be salvageable--just because much of the fancruft that's found its way to AfD has no RS doesn't mean that none ever will. I'm all for some sort of rescue category sorting that lets the ARS members who don't want to see fiction quickly skip over them, but I absolutely do not support that any rescue tag should be removed other than by the deletion (speedy or AfD) process. Jclemens (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The spirit of consensus is we work together and do so civilly. I see the tag as being added in cases where no rescue is likely will continue, but guess what, it might help and I see only the slight discomfort of a few as being the only problem with that. Arathi is a great example of this, almost no one saw the value in the article until it was transformed into another article completely. The very small percentage of articles at AfD that ever get the rescue tag is making me wonder what is the big deal? You accuse ARS of being inclusionist, again, yet it has been denied repeatedly and all allegations quite unproven so unless you want to press the point please move on with that line of reasoning. If you just don't like this project or the articles tagged then state your case at the AfD and let the community process work. Tagging the article with {{rescue}} isn't a majic wand, only regular editing actually "saves" an article. Banjeboi 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Could people please stop using Arathi as an example for this point. It completely does not apply. The article that the rescue tag was applied to no longer exists on wikipedia. And if the article that the rescue tag was in any way salvageable the procedure around the Arathi AfD would have been extremely troubling. Taemyr (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I see it as a good example of an article that only one person really saw as rescuable. Turns out they were right but good editing took away the unverifiable subject and found another article altogether. To me that's an improvement. Banjeboi 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article that the tag was placed on have gotten deleted. If you think otherwise pleace point me to the article on the WoW race. A deletion outcome of delete for the WoW article would have had zero impact for the article on the completely different subject that is the east african religion. If the WoW article had been even remotedly salvageable, this edit would have been extremely problematic and the proper cause of action would have been to start the religion article at a different title, and leave it there until the AfD was finished. Taemyr (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a freshly minted article at Arathi so let's just agree that wikipedia is better off now. Banjeboi 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I can agree that wikipedia is better of with the current article at Arathi. What I can not agree on is the statement that this is an example of a good rescue. The AfD was on a completely different article. Taemyr (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What the tag is not for

I reverted Benjiboi's changes because I feel that this removes the important point that it is not the current state of the article that is matters. It's the potential for improvement. Taemyr (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You modified and I general support the intention; although this still seems unhelpful to those who don't understand the issues or simply don't agree. I think it will be more productive to spell out common sense than point to a specific policy that then becomes a point of wikilawyering like we've witnessed. ie. "I'm removing because ____ says ____." I'm happy to work on something that conveys this so when editors need some guidance we can direct them there and it's not one policy that they may not agree with. Banjeboi 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add my voice of concern as well. Without pointing to any specific AFDs, I am increasingly seeing the "rescue" tag applied to articles which promote a lot of "Keep: notable, sources exist somewhere !votes. (Not to accuse everyone in the rescue squad of bad faith. I'm sure most of you, maybe even all of you are actually trying to improve articles, and the !vote-spamming may be a coincidence, or the misunderstanding of a few squad members at worst.) I think there needs to be some kind of check or balance on the rescue tag for that reason. Reversion is an option, but I'd like to have some kind of precise standard to know when reversion is appropriate, to remove the tag. The only other alternative I can think of is excessively bureaucratic and combative: a "AFD scrutiny" tag for AFDs that are being spammed by !votes with incoherent arguments with no evidential basis. I'd hate to see things go down that path, but the growing abuse of the "rescue" tag needs some kind of reasonable and semi-precise limit. Randomran (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I would say that those situations, where editors believe that sources exists somewhere is precisely the sort of articles that are candidates for rescue. That is, an editor should apply the rescue tag when he believes sources exists, but do not atm have access to those sources. Also, you'll want to read WP:VAGUEWAVE again. Taemyr (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that the use of this tag is somehow out of control or being abused. The same arguments could be said about AfD in general. I think someone called the inclusionists/deletionists at AfD trench warfare and this discussion may be a part of that thinking. I've added to the dashboard a count of total articles to add perspective to this; currently there are 646 articles at AfD with 10 tagged for rescue. Banjeboi 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ai Nagano

I need serious help trying to save my article, Ai Nagano, which I recently tagged for rescue. The article needs references, and lacks information readily available. Can anyone please help me? It is an article that is about to be deleted and needs improvement! Any assistance in saving my article would be appreciated. Thank you. Kitty53 (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All three articles, and frankly all articles need sources, good reliable ones. I suggest you focus on the most notable roles these actors did and on the Afd discussion you can post links to show evidence they acted in the roles listed. This might be found on the credits list for the film/series or a secondary report, even a press release could help demonstrate that actor _____ performed in _____. Figure out where it says they were the actors and you will have the sources. Banjeboi 22:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That is reliable sources. Unfortunately such sources would not be independent. As such they will not establish notability. Taemyr (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with sourcing which affirms what's being stated and work on replacing with more reliable sourcing as time allows. I'm unsure where to even look for this information but if movie credits state actor X played character Y and we have a RS that character Y is a major character in that movie I would accept the two as helping establish notability. Banjeboi 09:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ai Nagano, Kokoro Kikuchi, and Kiyoshi Kawakubo

Help! Now I have three seiyuu articles up for deletion! Ai Nagano, Kokoro Kikuchi, and Kiyoshi Kawakubo, which I have created, are up for deletion! Can anyone please help?!Kitty53 (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. In this edit summary [2] you refer to a ja article. Which article? Taemyr (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiUnderground (a home for deleted wikipedia articles). Tell me what you think.

I've spent the past couple months working on a home for deleted Wikipedia articles -- somewhere they can be worked on even after having been removed from wikipedia, so that maybe they'll be able to return to wikipedia. The current undeletion process, in which regular users don't even get to see the article proposed for undeletion, is crazy. In the best case scenario, the site could also be a playground for technical and social ideas that might struggle to find a foothold on wikipedia.

Here, for example, is every failed article rescue attempt -- resurrected and editable.

I'm planning on running WikiUnderground for profit (by displaying google ads) but only if that doesn't piss people off.

Okay, I'm going to bed -- I'd been putting off writing this because I think I've got mono or something. But there's a longer technical explanation also, if anyone's interested.

Cheers, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Errr, I can't see "for profit" ... are you going to pay people to re-write/fluff for what is a volunteer Wikipedia? Does that not create separate classes of editors? BMW(drive) 14:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm running google ads on the right-hand side -- not going to pay people. (Also, I rewrote the silly explanation.) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Needing diplomacy and finesse

Both Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo and Joseon tongsinsa are AfD nominated. Both are noteworthy subjects; but both are entirely unsourced and both are awkwardly written. Both were created by the same contributor who abandoned them and Wikipedia soon after.

The unverifiable text at Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo could be merged with the better written, but also unsourced prose at Complex of Goguryeo Tombs ... but the content problems would remain unaddressed. As a result of feedback at AfD, I learned that UNESCO has identified the Goguryeo mounds as a World Heritage Site.

Similarly, the unverifiable narrative at Joseon tongsinsa would be merged with the unsourced table at Joseon Tongsinsa ... but the essential problems in each article are unaffected. As a result of feedback at AfD, I looked into this subject a bit further and learned that in 2008, an application has been filed with UNESCO to register "Joseon Tongsinsa" on the World Cultural Heritage list.

I myself lack the optimistic temerity even to attempt to bridge these substantive gaps. In this instance, I'm persuaded that bold would be unwise, perhaps foolish for someone like me to do more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo for rescue. I have not done so for Joseon tongsinsa since I feel this was a bad AfD nom, and in such cases I feel in such cases that {{rescue}} is not quite the way to go. I have no doubt someone else will tag. In both cases the work that is needed is for someone with overview of the sources to merge the relevant articles together. Taemyr (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Taemyr -- Please allow me to reiterate that I will gladly apologize if or when I come to understand and agree with your point of view. I continue to assert, and to believe, that the article as it now stands does meet the criteria for deletion. However, as this posting makes clear, I'm committed to doing what I can to ensure that neither Joseon Tongsinsa nor Joseon tongsinsa deleted thoughtlessly or casually. --Tenmei (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of copyvios and attack pages AfD's is always about the potential that a topic have. Never about what the current state of an article is. Taemyr (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In light of your last posting, I will re-visit the guidance pages which informed my AfD nomination. I do not now recall reading that an assessment of potential becomes a relevant factor in this process. You may notice that I've underlined two sentences above. Even as I re-examine the criteria for AfD, I don't want to undervalue these unexpected and constructive consequences of this step in an oblique direction. --Tenmei (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The relevant section is WP:BEFORE on the procedure page, and WP:ATD on the policy page. Taemyr (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note that it's specifically the nom of Joseon tongsinsa that I react to, since discussions of alternatives already where underway at that article. Taemyr (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We are on the same page -- specifically WP:BEFORE and the sentence highlighted in bold:

• "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."

It was specifically that sentence in that section which informed my decision -- and in light of what has happened since, I think that assessment and judgment is born by what has developed. I'm astonished that we read the same sentence, we examined the same edit history and text, we are informed by the same record of an extended discussion -- and yet we draw such disparate conclusions.

I was referring to the sections. WP:BEFORE also includes statements such as

• Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.

WP:ATD states;

• If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand.
• The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

Taemyr (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is no mere "wonkery" for me to assert here that my AfD nomination was explicitly informed by WP:ATD -- both by the "Editing" sub-section and by the "Merging" sub-section; but this becomes worth pondering further. --Tenmei (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My appologize, it was not my intention to call your nomination process wonkery. If you read my comments that way please accept my reasurrance that this was not how my comments was intended. Taemyr (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)