Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron

To see the articles listed for rescue click here. To add an article to the list, see the instructions.

Add the {{Rescue}} template to any article at AfD worth saving

Please join us! All too often, an article about a notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? No! Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement.

The poor current state of an article is not a sufficient reason for deletion. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve this worthwhile content.

Why is it important to read Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion?

Every time an article is deleted, the contributions that were made to it are lost. Wikipedia administrators can access the information in deleted articles, but they are not necessarily experts on the article's topic. Once an article is deleted, its content, value, and appropriateness can no longer be evaluated by the general public.

In addition, the contributor who writes a poor article on a notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, they may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Everyone starts somewhere, and we should encourage better writing and better articles. Good faith efforts to contribute should be met with encouragement to improve.

This makes Articles for Deletion a very important place; one that deserves everyone's attention.

A common axiom is that "AFD is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles should not be deleted because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, sourceable content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. The Wikipedia policy of trying to correct problems in articles through editing improvements, expansion and adding reliable sources, which is addressed in detail at WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, is often more appropriate than a complete deletion of articles.

The question on whether a poor but improvable article ought to be deleted is a major point of contention, and has given rise to the wiki-philosophies immediatism and eventualism. The Article Rescue Squadron was highlighted in a July 2007 Wikipedia Signpost, and has grown with many processes to tag, track, and list tagged articles.

What can one person do?

The Article Rescue Squadron is not about arguing on talk pages but instead about editing articles. If everyone who cares about preserving important topics and removing unsuitable content reads one deletion discussion per day (or even one per week), the impact will benefit all our readers. Moreover, reading through an article nominated for deletion and adding sources and rewriting the text to remove or reword unsuitable content will help other editors decide if the article should be kept or deleted.

So ARS wants to keep everything?

No. The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes or making policy simply to ensure that nothing is deleted. The ARS ensures that articles that can be written to follow Wikipedia policies do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing, which per WP:AFD means that it was not a good candidate for deletion. The {{So fix it}} and {{Solookitup}} templates are sometimes all that's required for a rescue.

Instructions

What the Rescue template is for:

Our main focus is on articles on notable subjects going through Articles for deletion (AfD) that:

• Need references
• Are written poorly
• Lack information readily available
• Need cleaning up.

We also help rescue content in main namespace (refer to Wikipedia: Namespace for more information) and other Daily deletion debates (XfD) processes, such as Miscellany for deletion (MfD) and Templates for discussion (TfD).

ARS members may also be interested in rescuing articles listed at Wikipedia: Listing of possible copyright problems. These articles often cover notable topics. Evaluating the extent of such problems can be difficult, but thoroughly rewriting articles with problems identified as foundational has the additional benefit of helping Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup.

Usage:

If an article has been tagged for deletion (Afd), and you feel it meets the above guidelines, then you can flag an article for rescuing by:

1. clicking edit; and
2. adding the following line of text at the top of the page as shown in the example below:

{{Rescue}}

• The article's name can also be added to the template to direct users to the proper AfD discussion within the rescue banner: {{Rescue|page= }}— by adding the article's name after the equals sign,

If you are the main editor of the article tagged for deletion, or are unsure if an article is a good candidate for the Article Rescue Squadron, then please post a message including the article's title on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.

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

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

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. YourUserName (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Example:

You can flag an article for Rescue by editing it to add the bolded text under the AfD tag, but within the two sets of <!-- --> tags, as in the below example using a Robin Sage AfD:

<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->

{{AfDM|page=Robin Sage|date=2007 September 11|substed=yes}}

{{Rescue}}

<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->

The article will then appear in this category, along with all the others flagged for rescue. Adding it within the two sets of <!-- --> tags will also allow the closing admin to automatically remove the tag when closing the AfD.

What the Rescue template is not for:

• Articles that are not in the AfD process, including articles that have been deleted, even if you have archived the content. You might post {{findsourcesnotice}} to the article's talk page as a way to suggest where editors may find sourced material for the article.
• Articles that, no matter what improvements were made, would be considered inappropriate per WP:What Wikipedia is not. Use common sense, and feel free to ask what other editors think on the project talk page.
• Articles that, after reasonable attempts, still cannot be reliably sourced.
• Userpages.

Removing a rescue tag:

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

Tips to help rescue articles

• Browse Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion periodically, and consider tagging articles that you feel meet notability guidelines.
• Help improve articles flagged for rescue, by adding sources and otherwise cleaning them up.
• In general, discuss issues concerning an individual article on that article's talk page, not on this project's talk page.
• Check Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for tips.

Source searches:

• Google News
• Google Book Search
• Google Scholar
• NewsLibrary.com
• FindArticles.com
• World Cat
• Wikipedia Reference Search by the WRS project

Article Rescue checklist

Here's a quick checklist of 10 steps anyone can take for an article that needs rescue (in no particular order of priority):

1. Add WikiProjects – Look at the article's talk page to see if anyone has added appropriate WikiProject banners to the article. WikiProject banners help draw attention to articles from editors who are interested in the subject. You don't need anyone's permission to add a relevant WikiProject banner to an article talk page.
2. Solicit WikiProject support – Many articles needing rescue merely need attention from an expert on the subject. A short note on a WikiProject talk page seeking expert attention can bring remarkable results fast.
3. Take the time to Strengthen the Lead – The Lead sets the tone for the rest of the article. Take the time to rewrite the lead so that the article title and the contents of the article are in sync. Nothing detracts from an otherwise notable subject, than a lead that doesn't do a good job conveying what the article is about.
4. Find and add sources – It is most important that sources demonstrating the notability of a subject are added when they are found. Do it properly, using the correct citation templates.
5. Wikify the article – If an otherwise notable subject is just a bunch of unorganized content on the page, it is our job to clean it up when we find it and bring into line with our MOS. Turn poorly formatted references into proper citation templates. Add relevant sections.
6. Positively engage the new editor – When you find that the article has been created by a new editor (maybe their first one) or by inexperienced editors, engage them in a positive, mentoring way. Help them learn how to create and contribute better content. Engage them on their talk pages, encourage and challenge them, and most importantly make them feel welcome. If there are policy or guideline issues on the table, don't just refer them to a policy link, engage them in a discussion to ensure they understand what they need to understand. Even if the article is ultimately lost, this positive engagement will help us all turn new contributors into productive editors.
7. Add Infoboxes and Nav Templates – If appropriate and they are not there, add and complete as much as possible the appropriate infobox. Add relevant navigation templates.
8. Eliminate orphaned articles – Link and cross-reference the article with other articles, lists and categories. Make sure the article appears in the appropriate See also sections of related stuff. Look for sources and content in related articles that might enhance the orphaned article.
9. Eliminate the junk – If there is unsourced or irrelevant content, copyvios, OR or other junk in the article, eliminate it ruthlessly. If there is a question about the validity of content, start a discussion on the talk page and tag questionable content as necessary. Just don't ignore the junk if its there.
10. Treat the article as if it was your best achievement – Make changes to the article that will turn it into an article that you would be proud of personally. We know how to do it, we just need to do it.

Barnstars

There are four snazzy Rescue Barnstars for anyone who has made significant contributions to rescuing articles; it is up to those awarding them to choose which one to use:

Hall of fame:

• Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame#Award

How to become a member of Article Rescue Squadron

To join, simply add your name to our membership list; feel free to add your ideas to the project discussion page as well.

Then place this tag:

• {{User Article Rescue Squadron}}

on your user page:

This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.

 - There is an automatically-created list of members using this banner here.

Once you've rescued an article or two, show your Rescue Squadron pride with

• {{User:Jclemens/Rescues|n}}

(where n is the number of articles you've helped rescue)

This user has rescued n articles by improving them in the face of pending deletion.

 - There is an automatically-created list of members using this banner here.

To invite someone:

To invite someone to join ARS, you can use our handy invite by pasting {{Article Rescue Squadron invite}} to their userpage.

Selected previous rescues

See a selected list of previous rescues at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame

Restoration of articles

A number of articles have recently been deleted as Biographies that had been flagged for years as unsourced. The admins who deleted them have said they are happy for them to be restored providing any restored articles are then properly sourced and made fully compliant with wp:BLP. So if you are ready to Source them we will Just Restore them! NB To restoring admins, remove any negative material (it's in the history so it can be readded when sourced) and watchlist the article. If it isn't sourced within 48 hours, please redelete it. Suggest maximum 4 articles per restoration session, please check they were deleted for being unsourced BLPs and don't forget to restore the talkpages as well.

To volunteer to reference one or more of the articles that have recently been deleted as unreferenced BLPs, please just list them below in the format * I volunteer to reference [[article1]], [[article2]], [[article3]], [[article4]] ~~~~ (For articles deleted for other reasons please see Deletion review).

• I volunteer to next reference Thomas T. Matteson, Leo A. Berg, and Guðmundur Gunnarsson.--Milowent (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, restored all three. ϢereSpielChequers 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • When I went to source them, I was pleased to find that Bigtimepeace has already sourced all three!--Milowent (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Lets restore all of them to the incubator. Ikip 03:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think that we can do that unless either the RFC concludes with that as part of its solution, or you find an admin willing to wp:wheelwar. The current process is a compromise that allows us to go ahead and rescue these articles. ϢereSpielChequers 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• I volunteer to reference Nikollë Nikprelaj, Buddy England and Brandon Reilly. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, restored all three. ϢereSpielChequers 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Question: Should we be restoring these before they are sourced or userfying them first? I've been receiving userfied versions, sourcing them, THEN returning them to article space. It's going to be ~12 hours before I get these done and I don't want any controversy about them hanging around in article space without sources. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
      • A. Within 24 hours should be uncontentious. - For admins its different as they can restore when they are ready to source things. I'm not a big fan of userfying anything other than testpages and autobiographies as I think that article editing should be a collaborative mainspace venture. ϢereSpielChequers 16:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• I volunteer to next reference Cathy Greene, John Bucklaschuk, and Elly Dekker.--Milowent (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, restored all three. ϢereSpielChequers 00:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• I volunteer to next reference Michel Dalberto. J04n(talk page) 01:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, restored ϢereSpielChequers 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'll do Slobodan Lalović. Restorations have slowed as the most notable folks have been revived at this point.--Milowent (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, restored. Do you think the others are not notable or just not in topics that interest you? ϢereSpielChequers 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • To answer your question to Milowent from my perspective: a little of both. I can see cached versions and categories for the articles deleted by Scott MacDonald here but for the other deleted articles I'm relying on this which only gives article names and isn't helpful in determining rescuable articles. So of the MacDonald articles, my answer is is yes to both, for the others, I wish I could have more information. J04n(talk page) 18:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I haven't looked at every deleted article so I can't say they all aren't notable, its just my sense from looking at some of them. I am going off this list User:Apoc2400/Deletion list, where some have added comments regarding a few that may not be worth restoring - it would be useful to get an opinion there on the remaining unrestored ones.--Milowent (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I would think a good test is to use What links here and see what they were linked to... I'm pretty sure that the deleting admins didn't delink the articles, and I'm not as fussed at losing articles that have been orphans for years. I'd offer to look through a bunch and see which I think are more notable than others, but I suspect it would be difficult to remove my prejudices from the process. ϢereSpielChequers 10:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Next up, I would request Lisa Gastineau. The type of article no self-respecting editor would like to source, yet it was a fairly popular article (viewed 3955 times in December 2009) which could be be easily sourced and expanded.--Milowent (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, restored. There were a whole load of vandalisms there, I think I left them all out of the restore but that could become a bit of a vandal target. ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I see that JBSupreme pared it down to almost nothing in September 2008. I'll source what can be sourced and watch it, and request semi-protection if it reoccurs.--Milowent (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
      • On further reflection I've semi Protected it. ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take Yaya Dillo Djérou. I'll use [1] , [2].--Elvey (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, restored, good choice - we have a real shortage of African articles. ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take Adnan Coker, Turkish artist with lots of foreign language articles out there, and a few worthwhile English ones, a "master of contemporary Turkish painting".--Milowent (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can sombody please restore Marcelo Lucero? --KF5LLG (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

List of administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles
Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles‎ (empty) no pages or subcategories

Hey all, can you please update WP:ARS/BLP with the articles you saved, a former Arbitration member, Casliber, ask me to complete this list. He will probably use it to argue that we need to be careful. Thanks. Ikip 01:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against article deletion

Internet censorship ratings

  No censorship

  Some censorship

  Country under surveillance from Reporters Without Borders

  Most heavily censored nations

• Deletionism goes against the premise of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, The founder of Wikipedia.
• Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective. For some, the US presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that the Scottish scientist John Anderson is more prominent.
• It can be discouraging when articles created by first-time contributors and newer users are deleted without (in their opinion) a good reason. In their view, at least, the subject matter is noteworthy.
• Instead of deleting articles altogether, they can be merged with other articles (see Mergism).
• Article additions and expansions, and allowing time for them to occur, is highly superior to simply deleting articles.
• It's easy to criticize and delete, whereas it's much more difficult to do research and create content.
• Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of notability can reduce the total information of Wikipedia.
• It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and inside find that the relevant article existed at one point but has been deleted. This discourages both Wikipedia readership and authorship.
• Deleting an article on the basis of notability both reduces Wikipedia to the level of traditional encyclopedias (which won't cover topics that Wikipedia will for various reasons, including notability), but also doesn't provide the oversight that a traditional encyclopedia has to justify it trimming articles. Part of the reason people use Wikipedia is that it is a vibrant source of obscure knowledge, especially about obscure topics that aren't covered in a more traditional encyclopedia. Other methods of ensuring quality, such as labeling a page "In Need of Editing and Sources", are more than enough to correct problems.
• The Wikipedia search engine was updated and improved in 2010, in which "Search suggestions are now improved to get you to the page you are looking for more quickly," as reported on the Wikimedia blog on May 13, 2010. (link: "A new look for Wikipedia".) This serves to nullify the deletionist argument that "too many unnoteworthy or obscure articles impede finding the relevant stuff..." in Wikipedia searches.
• Search, categorization, and other technical measures for organization can diminish the difficulty in finding information even when there are many articles about insignificant subjects.
• Deletionists may subjectively pick-and-choose from a long and diverse list of Wikipedia notability and other guidelines as a rationale for the blanket deletion of an article. When one chosen standard is disproven, another rule is searched for and then stated as a rationale for deletion.
• Deletionists may use absolutist rationales and stances to justify article deletion. A notable example in Articles for deletion logs is arguing that absolutely no reliable sources exist to establish notability for and/or verify an article, while utilizing only one brief search for news and other sources, such as on Google or Google news, to qualify the statement. Sometimes it takes only seconds to disqualify such statements by utilizing web searches in other mediums, particularly those that are empirical, research-based, and lack a profit motive.
• Deletionism can be used as a form of censorship under the subterfuge of improving Wikipedia.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

— Jimmy Wales, The founder of Wikipedia

See also

• Alternative outlets for potentially useful/valuable content which is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
• Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
• Deletion policy
• Deletion precedents
• Deletion process
• Deletion review
• Deletion review guide
• Guide to deletion
• Introduction to deletion process
• Potential, not just current state
• There is no deadline
• Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki, a useful tool for referencing articles

Related projects

• Wikipedia:Article Incubator
• WikiProject Abandoned Articles
• WikiProject Deletion
• WikiProject Deletion sorting
• WikiProject Notability

Essays, etc.

• Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia
• User:Fresheneesz: Don't Destroy
• Article rescue contest
• Don't be an ostrich
• The Heymann Standard describes the amount of work that an editor feels a page needs to change their vote from "delete" or "neutral" to "keep" in an Articles for deletion debate.
• Give an article a chance
• Inclusionist's Guide To Deletion Debates
• Archimedes was deleted
• User:Emijrp/All human knowledge

External links

• The Charms of Wikipedia in NY Review of Books on article rescue by Article Rescue Squadron veteran Nicholson Baker
• Andrew Lih: Unwanted: New articles in Wikipedia
• Deletionpedia
• wmcharts - Deletions and restorations
• The hidden Wikipedia: how to find deleted material about Nutritional Medicine: Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. - Free Online Library