Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:00, 16 March 2009

Article Rescue Squadron

This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Misplaced Pages articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron

This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The mention is in: James Gleick (8 August 2008). "Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists". Wall Street Journal. Nicholson Baker (20 March 2008). "The Charms of Misplaced Pages". New York Review of Books.

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 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

• WP:ARSMENUS

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

There are currently 710 articles tagged for deletion at Articles for deletion.

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

Misplaced Pages: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

• Misplaced Pages: 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: Misplaced Pages: Files for discussion
  

Categories for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Templates for discussion
  

Redirects for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Redirects for discussion

Stub types for deletion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Stub types for deletion

Miscellany for deletion

• Main pages: Misplaced Pages: Miscellany for deletion and Category: Miscellaneous pages for deletion

Search all deletion discussions

About deleted articles There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion; 2) proposed deletion (prod) and 3) Articles for deletion (AfD). For more information, see WP:Why was my page deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "title," the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on their talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If this is not fruitful, you have the option of listing the article at WP:Deletion review, but it will probably only be restored if the deletion was clearly improper. List discussionsWP:Articles for deletion WP:Categories for discussion WP:Copyright problems WP:Deletion review WP:Miscellany for deletion WP:Redirects for discussion WP:Stub types for deletion WP:Templates for discussion WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting WT:Articles for deletion WT:Categories for discussion WT:Copyright problems WT:Deletion review WT:Miscellany for deletion WT:Redirects for discussion WT:Stub types for deletion WT:Templates for discussion WT:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Article alerts

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Article alerts

Dashboard counter

The above count for "articles tagged for deletion" is way off, at the time of writing it showed "10,052" when the actual number is 514... Could someone please either correct the template, or remove it as dreadfully incorrect? Fram (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The template this is in is here: Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Dashboard, the number is based on: {{PAGESINCAT:Articles for deletion}} Ikip (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone looked into this yet? -- Banjeboi 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it from the dashboard. Category counters are sometimes very unreliable, certainly when the pages it is based upon are regularly deleted (as is the case here). As long as we can't display a slightly reliable number (I don't mind the odd 100 more or less), it is better if we display nothing at all. Fram (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should fix it instead, it's meant to show the contrast between the two. -- Banjeboi 11:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

But when one of the two is completely wrong, it becomes pretty useless. If you can get it fixed, it can of course be reintroduced, although I don't believe that the comparison of the two figures says anything (some articles are kept without the ARS tagging, some articles are being deleted despite the ARS tagging: there is no obvious link between the number of tags and the number of AfD nominations or their validity: having fifty percnet tagged does not indicate a flaw in the AfD system, and having only one percent tagged does not indicate that the system works either). Fram (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It was created to show the contrast, and some perspective. It is after all only a dashboard tool to display a current status. I'm not sure if there are any other meaningful bits to add but personally I think it was interesting. -- Banjeboi 12:18, 6 March 2009 (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)

Well as often happens the timing was rather dismal, User:Ecoleetage just went on wikibreak due to RfA drama but, assuming he returns, (I hope), we can invite him in. I've set-up the barnstars on the mainpage and the current system of listing articles currently tagged seems the best way of tracking. In addition to the list of rescued articles there's at least two dozen awaiting to be added - all could get barnstarred. Banjeboi 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Question from a prospective member

Hello, Article Rescue Squadron. In my experiences with AfDs and Deletionism in general, a sense of futility and isolation set in and finally led me to hang up the "Retirement" sign. I've been lurking around in my retirement, however, and came across this project, and think it's a great idea. One of the irritating things, when I saw a clearly inappropriate Afd-- which I would see about once a day-- was that there are no consequences for the nominator. Those who wish to save the article do all the work that the nominator should have done-- if he really cares about improving Misplaced Pages-- and that work is usually rewarded by nothing more than maybe not seeing perfectly good material removed. So here's my question: Do you guys have any kind of a "Barnstar" to "reward" these guys who are abusing the AfD process to let them know that their "work" is being noticed? "Worst AfD nomination of the week / month / year?" or something like that? "Most number of AfD nominations within one category?" "Most repeat-nominations for a single article?" Or would this be considered "disruptive" (as if abuse of the AfD system were not disruptive...) Anyway, I'm looking around, and might join you guys later, if you'll have me. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• No. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that sort of thing tend to be seen as abusive. If you feel an editor is abusing the AfD system, or interpreting the AfD process in a disruptive way the correct way to proceed is first to discuss the issue with the editor, then to post at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts or begin a RfC on his conduct. In addition, although this is just my opinion and one not shared by most project members, fragrantly bad AfD noms are outside of scope for this project. If there is no reason for deletion, there is no improvement to the article that will qualify as rescue. Taemyr (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Harassing the deletionists is out? :-( OK, I took a stab at the article on the top of your list: The God That Failed (song). Is this the kind of thing the project does? Dekkappai (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. And yes. Taemyr (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been considering creating something like a {{uw-badafd}} series of user warning templates, though, with pointers to WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. There are user warning templates for using dashes incorrectly, so I see no reason why submitters of the poorest AfDs should be immune from constructive criticism. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think anything like that is going to look like an attack. What would be cool is if some bot would keep track of AfDs, who nominated them, and their deletion percentage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Any template has a sense of impersonalness that can be viewed as hostile. Look through WP:UWT and see if there isn't room for such a template amongst others such as {{uw-italicize}} and {{uw-preview}}. It would have to be worded appropriately, but there's nothing intrinsically more hostile with such a template than any of the others. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Such a template would also likely violate the don't template the regulars concept. Any meaningful change, IMHO, needs to be policy based - either in clearly sussing out what policies define as AfD abuse and how to respond to alleged abuse - or changing policies to define what is abusive and remedies for addressing the concerns.

The bot-tracking of AfDs on its surface sounds good, but would need to be highly refined. Ultimately it would be, IMHO, a badge of honor, for some users, and unlikely deterrent for the rest. I would also be concerned that someone would in any way game the systems so their numbers registered one way or another. I am interested to see what others think about what would actually deter bad AfDs from coming down the pipeline. If we change a step in the nomination process or otherwise tweak the system will it resolve the issue or just re-align where the problems are at? For instance if most AfD's are instead encouraged to prod first - just an idea here - in theory many articles would be deleted that no one is watching or cares enough about. In turn a whole wing of prod-watching would emerge so is it really a good solution? -- Banjeboi 02:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ta da! It's beta and it doesn't quite get merges right, but there you go. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That was scary quick! If it could give totals it might be more meaningful and frankly this leads to having List of editors by AfDs with sortable columns for Keep's, Delete's, no-consensus, merge and other. I bet that takes more tahn a few minutes! -- Banjeboi 02:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure that was from User:SQL, not me. I wouldn't know a regular expression from an elephant on stilts. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if an elephant on stilts is irregular the expressions of those around will likely be, too. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The bad-AfD "barnstar" is no doubt a bad idea. It would be taken as either a "personal attack", or as a badge of honor, depending on the humor of the deletionist so tagged... But the idea for it came about because of the total lack of a system of checks on the deletion/AfD system... People are free to nominate, basically, any article, as many times as they wish, without consequence (as long as they don't go too far overboard). If I follow what this project is doing, I was doing much the same thing on my own before I threw in the towel at Misplaced Pages. I was usually saving articles, too, but some of those articles were subsequently re-nominated by the original nominators. And, since by then I had come to see defending them as futile, and no one else stepped forward, they are gone now... With no possibility of any kind of repercussions for mass-nominating, multiple-nominating, "I don't like it" nominations, nominating without doing the slightest bit research, there is really no reason not to to nominate an article for deletion, if one is of that mindset... It just seems like a crazy system to me. Anyway, it looks like you guys have a good idea going here, and I'll try to do what little I can to help out when I am able. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• there is a pretty strong social pressure against renomination of articles which are basically unchanged and meet policy. This is distinct from articles which don't meet policy but get kept due to local consensus. I see plenty of AfD's closed under SPEEDY or SNOW because the nominator made a serial AfD from an otherwise good article. The system isn't perfect, but it basically works. We see very few articles that clearly meet guidelines deleted without review. Protonk (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure about that - having saved a few articles that no one though were salvagable I wonder how many others were deleted because no one cared enough or had the spare hours within the set time frame. I love the prospect of the list of editors by AfD if SQL's tool can be modified for it. This might give inspiration for more systematic investigation. I can't remember who it was but I sharply recall a user who has a boasting of how many articles they had deleted - that seems like a terrible achievement when the goal is to create. I also think Jclemens idea about highlighting links that stress steps before an AfD and alternatives to AfD are also helpful. I disagree a template would be the way to go as outlined but unsure what a better option would be. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I know what you mean... I know absolutely nothing about Metallica, but just a simple look through a couple of book indexes, and I found a whole essay on the song that was up for deletion... And the article had apparently been successfully prodded before, and just escaped this time because the time had elapsed! I see that today a list I was involved in saving a couple times is now up for its sixth trial on the AfD chopping-block. I knew an editor who kept a trophy-wall of articles he had got deleted. In fact at one point he nominated the list I just mentioned. Like many deletionists, he is now an Admin... The sense of futility sets in, and I've finally just given up on that list. They can have it. I'll salvage the parts I wrote and cart them off to another Wiki-like project I'm involved in. Why continue scrounging around for sourcing, writing, and arguing against the deletion, when all they have to do is slap a tag on it, sit back and hope they hit a jackpot this time... and if not this time, there's always next?... I like the project you guys have set up here, but I'm beginning to get the same sinking feeling I had before I retired-- like I'm trying to bail out a sinking ship with a teacup... I don't think it is a system that works well most of the time. Good material is deleted on a regular basis unless someone steps in and devotes their time to working on someone else's article. (And don't even start on images! Within about half an hour, I could probably show you half a dozen deleted Fair Use or Public Domain film posters that have been wrongly deleted because the image description was not filled out so that a bot could read it.) I do think that the majority of editors here at Misplaced Pages are opposed to this overzealous deletion, but those who are in favor of it are usually the ones who gain positions of authority. Some sort of popular revolution against this deletionist free-for-all needs to get started. I hope someone wakes me up when it does... I'll be happy to join it. Until then, I'll devote my time to a project that craves more rather than less material from its editors. Dekkappai (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• such is the nature of the fight. It is always going to be it easier to delete than to improve, and the only defense the encyclopedia has against that is the persistence of people who do not give up. Perhaps not everyone can save an article a day, but almost anyone can save at least one a week. Of the 10000 or so articles at AfD a week, I'd say that about 1/2 will be hopeless, 1/4 will be kept, and 1/4 can be kept only if th y are improved. Thats 250 a week. 250 people each doing one a week can make the difference. I continue to be an optimist, and thing we have 3250 good and sensible people here. The ay to get more of them is to avoid alienating people. This is the othr side of NOT OWN -- it should be sen as meritorious to improve someone else's article a your own. this is our project, and they are all of them our articles.

Dekkkappai, nobody will throw out the deflationists for you. You can defeat the by improving some articles so thoroughly that they can go ahead an delete them. (And also by staying around to join in the defense of those that are good enough to pass.). i figure if we win half the time, that's a lot better than the alternative. The key to winning even half the time, of course, is selectivity-hence this project and the focus it can bring. 07:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD summaries

Any chance of someone taking over these AFD summaries to get them working again? This may help us find those article in more of a need to rescue. -- Suntag ☼ 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap that actually has potential! I consider my weak point actually combing through AFDs to find ones that deserve rescuing but this may help exponentially! -- Banjeboi 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

{{findsourcesnotice}}

Hi ARS. I created {{findsourcesnotice}} as a way editors can quickly tag non-ARS talk pages to suggest where those interested in the article may find reilable source material for the article. -- Suntag ☼ 21:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you know...

...that there are Brownie points for newly-expanded articles which are available at WP:DYK? I just tried this for the first time on an article that I expanded to save it from deletion. The process wasn't too bad - easier than nominating an article for AFD. By doing this, you can get some kudos for the hard work of adding references and text as well as the warm glow of saving an article from deletion. This seems a good twofer and we can share the credit if we work together on a rescue. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Past successful deletion debates Sub article

I was thinking of creating a sub article of this article which lists great AfD debates, as examples for future editors attempting to save articles.

For example:

Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Past successful deletion debates

I have been trying to teach editors how to debate in Articles for Deletion. I realized that Articles for Deletion examples would be very helpful for new editors, but I think I need help. travb (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, ARS is not about the debates. It's about the articles. The best rescues are those that makes the debate moot. Taemyr (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable going down that road. We should find ways to encourage editors to understand the threshold of notability and also how to reolve real concerns of article creep. For instance, many of the fictional item AfD'd would be fine in a list format rather than separate articles. While I don't tend to delete items I also am concerned that we are getting a lot of articles that aren't notable because we are advertising ARS in your tips talkpage postings. There are already some good resources along the lines of what you're asking about but before they go in guns blazing they should take a breath and consider if an article is indeed appropriate at this point. A cleaned article about a non-notable subject is still an article in trouble. Having stated all that it may not be a bad idea to start up a thread on what works/what doesn't and see if any ideas pop from that. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Benjiboi :) I started a general article: User:Inclusionist/Del. I am trying to teach new editors how to survive in an AfD discussion.

RE: "Past successful deletion debates" I will do something unaffiliated with this project, I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Maybe I can solicit advice from editors to share some of their most incredible war stories.

I already checked all of the AfDs involving WP:NALBUMS, WP:NSONGS, which is on User:Inclusionist/Del. But would like more specific success stories

travb (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New idea to recognize efforts

Please see and help with User:A Nobody/Article Rescuers' Hall of Fame, which I have created in my userspace for now. Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job, I think it should be a subsection in the list of Article Squadron members. Maybe instead (or also) have the list by article, not by person because

1. Its about the articles, not the editors
2. Often several Article Rescue Squadron editors Tag team to save an article, not just one editor. travb (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. We had something similar to this at DYK, which later resulted in some very heated discussions. It'd be better to list them by articles, since otherwise it might look like attention seeking (which some people would not like that much). Chamal 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem that I have with listing this by article, and not editor (and I write this as someone who has had next-to-zero involvement in AfD, so I'm not trying to get in the "Hall" myself):

• From a practical standpoint, listing by articles will likely yield a list of incredibly awkward length. I mean, what if the Football Hall of Fame listed all the "Great Plays", or even just the "Great Games"? Can you imagine how huge the number of "members" would be?
• And that's another thing: It just doesn't feel right. I mean, Halls of Fame have members. Doesn't it seem silly to have "Great Plays" in a Hall of Fame rather than players? Of course, they're related, (the greatest players make great plays more often than others) but we create Halls to honor people, not things. Unschool 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Personally I'm conflicted on this. Many many articles are rescued without our involvement, that is not true for DYK, which is a more vetted process with defined parameters. Some feel a merger, or perhaps anything that isn't a delete, is a form of a rescue but I'm not sure I agree with that. Also this list will be huge and I'm not sure that makes sense. Perhaps we could simply have a list, not call it "Hall of fame", and use it to note when someone has been recognized for rescue work. I'll point to DGG who has undoubtably been instrumental in many saves but usually doesn't get credited as they mainly present sound perspective in AfD. Perhaps ditch the Hall of fame and treat more NPOV as just a list of note. What it is used for can be sussed out after more discussion. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class

With John W. Rogers, Jr. yesterday being promoted to Good Article, and counting Manny Harris, Nate Parker, Toni Preckwinkle and Tory Burch, I have created articles for five formerly deleted articles and taken them to WP:GA-class. I am making the announcement since I only have one rescue barnstar and there seem to be several different ones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been told that some WP:ARS purists might be a bit taken aback by my claim. I should clarify my recovery involvment. I have successfully saved Thomas Wilcher at WP:AFD. I was unsuccessful with Toni Preckwinkle on its second AFD. However, I took both articles to WP:GA status. All of the other articles were deleted without my involvement mostly through CSD prior to my recreation and promotion to GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which barnstar would be appropriate, but very nice job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! That is wonderful. Three cheers for Fisher! You are an inspriation and a model for all wikipedians to follow. travb (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I created a new category Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class and template Template:Rescued for use on recreated good articles talk pages. I added this template to the five articles of TonyTheTiger, and I am going to solicit whether other editors know of any other articles which were deleted then reached good article status too. Ikip (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And I have removed it again from Nate Parker, since the deleted article was about a different person and was correctly deleted. The Tory Burch article which was deleted was pure spam, with the wonderful closing line "Information provided by Brandhabit.com", and so was also a perfectly correct deletion. Only one of the other deletions was after an actual AfD discussion, so really relevant here. Fram (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Also, Dragon kill points, which was previously deleted with much fanfare, is now a Good article. Protonk (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Example

Tunnel Running was a logn ago (but very visible) rescue - see its AFD for how this evolved (if examples are needed). FT2  07:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of embattled users

I have found in my work with new editors, that the majority of new editors are welcomed with warning templates and impersonally nasty messages, saying subtly, and not so subtly, that "your contributions are not welcome" In other words, veteran editors can be real &*&(^ to new users. What I love about this project is we are not only about saving articles, we are about, indirectly, retaining new users. I just created a new template/barnstar morph: User:Ikip/t which can be placed on new editors talk pages:

==Welcome==

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Hello, Article Rescue Squadron, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like wikipedia and decide to stay. I am sorry that there are so many impersonal warning messages on your talk page. There are many editors who feel that your hard work here is important and valuable, especially me. Need help? If you are looking for help, you can just type: {{helpme}} ...and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Or, please visit New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! If you have any questions at all, please . Again, welcome! Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Subst:User:Ikip/t}}

The template signs your name for you. It is part of:

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		message Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiads

See: Template:Misplaced Pages-adnavbox. Any creative editor willing to make a wiki-ad for Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron? I will ask the creators of the existing templates if the can create one.Ikip (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Medals

I started awarding Article Rescue Squadron medals to those people listed on Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame, the coding is here:

{{ARS|ArticleTitle}}

You don't have to add a name to this list to award someone or yourself this medal. Ikip (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(Inspired by User:Piotrus/Top which is hanging above his talk page). Ikip (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting debate that should interest Rescue Squad members

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of certain fiction articles as a result of a proposed notability guideline directed specifically toward fiction. If you feel inclined, please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Thanks, Schmidt, 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter

Would anyone here be interested in starting a newsletter with me? The best example and most popular newsletter is: WP:POST. There are several examples:

• Category:WikiProject Films newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Cats newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Hawaii newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Biography newsletters
• Category:WikiProject India newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Led Zeppelin newsletters
• Category:WikiProject The Beatles newsletters
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter

...and several bots: Category:Newsletter delivery bots. Ikip (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a semi-annual one may be OK, lets coordinate this once we get a few other kinks worked out. I'd like to see a How-To rescue subpage be created and sort out a few of the present drama so if we get an influx of energy it is directed wisely. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding the list of articles to be rescued to your talk page

User:Casliber had a brilliant idea: adding the list of articles which currently have the rescue tag to your talk page:

Template:ARS/Tagged

Coding: {{ARS/Tagged}}

This list is dynamic, and the list of articles will change as the rescue template is removed or added from articles. Ikip (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This crosses a line. I am unhappy with an automatic tool to canvass AFDs to anyone with a self-professed agenda at AFD, especially with no criteria other than someone not wanting the article deleted. When it's a project's cleanup tool in the project's space, that's one thing, but this is too much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Template for articles under deletion review?

I propose creating a template for articles under deletion review. Ikip, are you up to that? Sincerely, --A Nobody 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you recall, I did create this, and it was promptly deleted by the editor I made it for. But it will take me two seconds to remake it. Ikip (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What would be the goal of this? If you want to improve a deleted article, just ask pretty much any admin to undelete and userfy/projectify it for you. A Nobody does this all the time, and ideally this is done before a DRV. If it's an article that wasn't deleted that's at DRV, 99% of the time it's at DRV because of some issue other than not being well-sourced enough. (Typical issues involve copyvio, libel, etc.) With a goal, that informs the form and use of the template.

A simple cat (or a template with the cat, if you really want) to link this project's userfied-with-the-intent-of-restoration pages would probably be a good idea, come to think of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Recreated, Template:AfD/Tagged I am going to combine several templates to make one grand template. Ikip (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The coding is right here:

{|class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" align=right  cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" width=300px
!style="background: #cdc"| Articles tagged for ] 
|-
|align=left| <categorytree mode=pages>Articles for deletion</categorytree>
|}
<noinclude>]</noinclude>

18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE

This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at Misplaced Pages:Editing policy. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "endeavour to preserve information" is in harmony with our mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the heads up, there are several other guidelines and essays which echo this policy, see User:Ikip/Del#Strong_arguments:

1. WP:PRESERVE Policy Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing...
2. Misplaced Pages:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion.
3. Misplaced Pages:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Misplaced Pages urges any contributor to read the Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.)
4. Misplaced Pages:Introduction to deletion process WP:INTROTODELETE Essay Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
5. Misplaced Pages:Potential, not just current state WP:POTENTIAL Essay In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort
6. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion WP:BEFORE Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
7. Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination "consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content."

Ikip (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - thanks for this fine summary. It is quite remarkable how blind some editors are to these numerous encouragments to save material and build upon it. The fact that WP:PRESERVE comes as a surprise to them is telling. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

DRV and Templates

Do you participate in WP:DRV? Also, do you rescue templates. I have two current DRVs. One for an article about to be overturned and one for several templates in need of rescuing. Please see Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_4#User:TonyTheTiger.2FObama.27s_first_100_days and Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#User:TonyTheTiger.2Fsandbox.2FSISwimsuit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not officially, (ask User_talk:Benjiboi if he comes back) but ARS members can help. Ikip (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I commented on both. So many editors are such bullies. Ikip (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We're looking into adding XfD and possibly some subpages with helpful DIY hints and guidelines. -- Banjeboi 00:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Update. This has been enabled now and added to instruction on the {{Rescue}} page, ironically that template itself is the very first non-article tagged for rescue. -- Banjeboi 15:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We really don't need any additional creep in the application of this template. It was created as a tool to identify notable subjects with poorly-written articles, and increasing it to DRVs and templates and anything you might want to slap it on causes problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That is one way to look at things. I don't agree. DRV, for instance, can benefit from ARS if an article is improved that the discussion is moot. Templates and categories as well are deleted in other XfD processes but also may be removing items that improve Misplaced Pages. The spirit is very much the same. The DRV was specifically to address articles so that, to me, is no biggee. Before we really do any wholesale tagging on templates et al though I would like to see some more helpful information to assist our project members as well as someone wanting to tag those items. For instance, a subsection that helps inform a would-be tagger where to find out info on templates and why they are deleted. We help people understand what notability and reliable sourcing are for articles and likewise we can help with other areas if only to help them understand wikipedia processes. My hunch is that traffic in non-article areas will be minimal as most newbies aren't terribly attuned to them. -- Banjeboi 16:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's rather hard to improve a deleted article, and I can't imagine any article kept at AFD would ever be at any risk of being deleted at DRV unless DRV nom alleged actual harm to the project or subject (BLP, copyvio, etc.) Misplaced Pages tools that are not articles are not subject to deletion because of notability.

I do not want this to become the all-purpose Save My Shit template. Tagging non-articles needs a pretty compelling justification for a project that exists to save articles from AFD by improving them, and a vague "making newbies familiar with Misplaced Pages's processes" isn't it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with him, I'm afraid. DRV is concerned with faults in the deletion process. Even though People Who Disagreed With Me Won is a depressingly common fault, expanding to cover DRV would stretch the Squadron's scale even further beyond conventional rescuing. What are we doing to help ensure that the meaning of the rescue template does not become diluted? --Kizor 21:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, Tony the Tiger! Generally speaking, articles under Deletion review should be undeleted for the review with work done to improve them during the discussion anyway as our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia and not be bogged down by formality and rules that get in the way of that larger purpose. Best, --A Nobody 20:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I think this is WP:CREEP. If anyone wants to work on a deleted article, and the deleting admin won't userify a copy for them to work on, give me a shout and I will--as long as it's appropriate. Here's how the process should work, in my mind:

1. Article is deleted through the AfD process.
2. Rescuer asks admin for copy
3. Admin restores & userifies copy of deleted article into Rescuer's user space.
4. Rescuer (and whomever wants to help) works on the userified version, fixing the reason(s) for deletion.
5. Rescuer submits improved, userified version to DRV, asking for restoration of the improved article.
6. DRV evaluates new version.

Where in this process flow is a template needed or appropriate? Where might ARS help? Probably just in step 4--the purpose of ARS is not to simply weight the !vote in step 6. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Not claiming that I am most familiar with all our work, although I certainly might be, I saw a need for this functionality a while ago when an article already tagged went to DRV but the rescue tag couldn't point to the relevant discussion. Per my explanation above I hardly see this as creeping as the spirit is the very same although how exactly to coordinate usage should be thought out as we are here to help improve Misplaced Pages and should be user friendly toward that end. Also I see most of the now-oft-repeated-yet-rarely-if-ever-proven refrain of "abuse" coming from newbies who are less likely to even be involved in category, DrV or template XfDs. Initially my response was also that I didn't see the usefulness at DRV articles but the fact remains that articles are restored at DRV. If ARS can help improve articles addressing the very same issues - notability and sourcing seem to be the biggees - that we do in AfD then I think we can help. I personally don't do much at DRV but I have seen quite a few be overturned and done so because the article had undergone further improvements thus addressing the stated concerns. I see us rather like doctors and medical staff - do no harm and if it may help and likely can't hurt why not try it. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is affected when an article is deleted

After a couple of months of compiling data, I finally finished the first section of my research: User:Ikip/AfD on average day, thanks to a dozen admins who gave me a copy of the deleted material. I found what many article squadron members already know, that our current deletion policy overwhelmingly effect new users:

1. 31 out of 98 articles, nearly one third, which were put up for deletion were created by editors whose very first contributions was the new article.
2. 66 out of 98 articles, 67%, which were put up for deletion were created by editors who had 100 contributions or less when they created the article.
3. 81 out of 98 articles, 82.6%, which were put up for deletion were created by editors who had 1000 contributions or less when they created the article.

Any ideas how I can figure out if there is a definite link in the drop in editing since October 2007 to the treatment of new users?

Further research includes:

1. Finding out the number of contributions that those who nominate articles have.
2. Seeing if any nominator followed WP:PRESERVE or WP:BEFORE before nominating the article for deletion (I postulate that none of them did, or maybe 1)
3. Seeing how many of the articles were nominated because of "notability"
4. Seeing how many users left wikipedia because their article was deleted.
5. Seeing how these new users were treated on their talk pages. Ikip (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

They have a tool to see how many things someone has nominated for deletion. Would that help? I think it gives other information too. Notability is almost always the excuse for deleting something. And many rabid deleters do not explain things on the talk page for the article or the user's page, even for a first time contributor. And do you just want to see how many new editors were driven away by their first article being attacked, or do you wish to include those who just made simple first time edits on an article, and without explaining to them what they did wrong, another editor reverted what they did, and warned them against vandalism, even when clearly they were putting something they thought legitimate there? Should the new comer have to post a question asking what was wrong with their edit, or should the editor reverting be the one to explain why they were reverting it? And are you looking at the number of hits the wikipedia gets and the number of new users that register or post as an IP address, or just the number of people that don't make any edits or create new articles ever again after their first unpleasant encounter? They keep track already of what types of articles what percentage of the wikipedia traffic. I wonder how many increases hits the wikia gets, as the number of wikipedia hits goes down in some categories, fans of a series wishing more information, only able to get it on external wikis. Dream Focus (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas how I can figure out if there is a definite link in the drop in editing since October 2007 to the treatment of new users?

There isn't even a correlation unless you can somehow establish that this is a new trend, which would surprise me greatly. New users are the least likely to understand Misplaced Pages's standards of inclusion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it will be very difficult to find a correlation. Ikip (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about this. Some random thoughts:

• There is to some extent a perception of "This article has lasted this long, there must be some value to it." This was part of what stymied WP:BAND for so long. Personally, I'd rather reverse this stigma (new articles given a chance, old articles with little progress despite their age looked down upon), but it does exist.
• New users are the least likely to understand Misplaced Pages's standards of inclusion, be they written or unwritten. Long-time users are unlikely to write articles about themselves, their cat, their band, etc.
• It would be very difficult to create an objective standard of "nominated because of notability". The word is slippery, and means different things to different people at different times, particularly before WP:GNG/"On Notability".
• New articles are subject to more scrutiny due to appearing on Special:Newpages; old articles, especially orphans, may only get spotted by bots or people who fool with Special:Random.

Just some thinking. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is this possibility: Once upon a time, when Misplaced Pages had many fewer articles, it was easier for a newbie to find something worth keeping than it is now. When I started, red links & articles consisting of only a sentence fragment could be found at every turn. Heck, over half of the Roman Emperors did not have articles. I suspect around 2006/2007 Misplaced Pages passed the point where a new user could think of a missing subject within 15 minutes, so she/he had the choice between something clearly esoteric or obscure -- say an Ethiopian politician -- or something of dubious interest to a stranger -- like garage bands, local celebrities, etc. Some get zapped because they simply aren't notable, which is fine; but some get zapped because the person creating the article doesn't know how to establish notability for the subject in a way that will satisfy a skeptical Admin, which isn't. Briefly put, it's just getting harder to create a new article at Misplaced Pages, but not yet impossible. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's odd that you would mention an admin. You don't need to be an admin to nominate something for AFD, or comment at AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've thought of that, too. There are two things that counter that argument, however. The first is the survey that you can read about in this Signpost article. The second is direct experience. There are huge areas that I know from experience we have woefully incomplete coverage of. Ironically, I often find them when doing rescues. I just found yet another batch of such missing topics in exactly that way. You can see them at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Typoglycemia (2nd nomination) (q.v.). There are still redlinks to be found if one knows where to look.

    Furthermore: Remember how old Misplaced Pages:List of bad article ideas is. Even four years ago, people writing about themselves, their bands, their pets, and whatnot, was endemic. That's not a new trend at all. There probably only seems to be more of it than there was 8 years ago simply because there are a lot more people editing Misplaced Pages than there were 8 years ago.

    Let me suggest some food for thought:

    The problem may well be nothing at all to do with a lack of new subjects yet to cover, and rather to do with something else entirely that has been a noticeable trend of late: the rather odd and un-Misplaced Pages-like notion that redlinks are bad, and that the encyclopaedia is somehow now complete. This is particularly noticable at disambiguation articles, where editors regularly purge them of dangling hyperlinks, under the guise of enforcing style guidelines. We used to treat redlinks at invitations to write. Disambiguation articles, especially disambiguations for initialisms and acronyms, used to be one place where one could find missing topics readily, with many redlinks being placeholders. No longer is this the case. We've already reached the point where editors regard disambiguation articles that have all redlinks as targets for deletion, rather than as invitations to create the missing articles listed. They reach for their deletion nomination templates instead of for "create this article". Witness Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GADS. Most importantly, witness what happened, after the AFD discussion, to the remaining missing articles that were not created during the discussion. That happens all of the time. Some people even appear to have cooked up scripts for doing it.

    Also notice that on a regular basis there are bursts of nominations of disambiguation articles for Proposed Deletion because "hatnotes on 2 pages suffice". Sometimes they have only two entries in the first place because the other entries, suggesting missing articles that people could create, have been removed.

    If you want a more readily apparent reason for readers (erroneously) thinking that there's nothing new left to create, look to the fact that we now actively hide the redlinks from readers in hundreds of thousands of articles. I used to find ideas for missing articles to create in disambiguations. Did you?

    This effort, to actively purge redlinks from a whole class of pages, that are (by their very nature) some of the most commonly navigated ones in the encyclopaedia, all in the name of "style", is perhaps where you should best lay the blame for not seeing as many redlinks as you used to see years back, Llywrch.

    As I said: food for thought. Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    • No, I see lots of redlinks in my corner of Misplaced Pages, & I make them too like Coffee production in Ethiopia. The people you write about, Uncle G, haven't gotten to my corner yet; I'd like to think it's because I write better stubs about towns & villages than some folks. (More likely it's because I deal in Ethiopia-cruft, & they haven't decided to sluice out that part of the stables yet.) And the two cents I pitched in above were not meant to exclude any other explanation -- just pointing out that the Misplaced Pages of 2003 is not the Misplaced Pages of 2009: the windfalls have all been harvested, & most of what White, middle-class Euro-American computer nerds consider the low-hanging fruit have been picked. -- llywrch (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • You remind me of another rescue: Agriculture in Senegal (AfD discussion). ☺

        That's the point, though. Your personal experience is like mine: There are redlinks and stubs aplenty still to be had. And that's not unexpected, in truth. No reasonable person would expect us to have achieved complete coverage of every existing subject in this time. Our experience bears out what the survey says: There's as much scope for expansion now as there was before. And although there is, quite obviously, systemic bias (including egregious FUTON bias), the point is also that that isn't necessarily a causative factor at all in the creation of the bad articles on the bad article ideas list.

        There have always been people coming here for the wrong reasons — to self-publicize, to hoax, to advertise, to document the undocumented, to add new things that they just made up, or simply to use a free WWW site that costs them nothing as their personal scribbling board (like children with a packet of crayons and a blank wall). The Misplaced Pages of 2003 (or even earlier) had that problem. It simply wasn't as popular as the Misplaced Pages of 2009. That popularity alone increases the flow of bad articles. Do we even need to look for another cause?

        Also bear in mind the phenemonon that, for want of a better name, I christen Deletion Patrol bias. If one patrols AFD or Proposed Deletion, one tends to see more of the articles that are down in the dark and dank depths of Misplaced Pages. (Part of the art of article rescue is giving such articles a good solid shove upwards, in the direction of the lofty heights of Featured Articles. Most times this shove doesn't push the article up beyond the stratum of "good stub".) From that one tends to overgeneralize. But a spot of New Pages Patrol often serves to remind that there are numerous good editors out there whose articles never even come near deletion discussions, in part because they are created the right way. (There's also a New Pages Patrol bias, mentioned above by A Man In Black.) One just needs to do New Pages Patrol with an eye to how many articles one is skipping over, because they cite good sources and have no immediate cleanup issues. The articles that come up for deletion are not representative of Misplaced Pages as a whole.

        As to the whole "We're scaring off new users!" issue, my personal experience is that that's rubbish. My very first new article (created long before I had an account) was nominated for deletion. It didn't scare me off. I'm — indeed — now an administrator with a long history of article rescues. ☺ We're certainly pushing against the flow of bad articles on the bad ideas list, and discouraging the people who have the bad ideas. But that's also something that is the same as the Misplaced Pages of years ago. We've always had a clear idea of the project goal, and discouraging the bad has been as much a part of Misplaced Pages acculturation as encouraging the good. The people that Misplaced Pages needs are the people who learn from the rejection of the bad ideas, and start having good ideas instead. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: "We're scaring off new users!" issue. Before I did this painful research I only had anecdotal evidence, and my own experiences. I have now established that the majority of articles which are deleted, are created by new users.

This may sound shocking, but the quality of those articles deleted, while an important question, is not very important to the question: Are we scarring off new users? Because most new users don't know all of our rules, and are expected to add bad articles (that said, I see a lot of articles in this list which were deleted that have potential). I am going to avoid this question now, because it is subjective, and it will only cause contention and arguments.

My next step is to see what the new editors talk page looks like. I have found that many editors first welcome is "your article is going to be deleted".

Maybe the next step after that is to find 100 random new editors who have e-mail enabled, and who have no longer edited wikipedia for the past month, and ask them why. I hope to get maybe 20 responses, and post those responses.

Ikip (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G offhandedly brings up a good point about new users and turning the corner. At some point, there are going to be good-faith users who just haven't gotten it yet. You can argue what the proportions are, but some of those article written by new users are going to be completely useless conceptually ("John Smith and the Garage Rockers", "my cat Fluffikins", etc.), instead of simply badly-written articles with potential. Most of our "Your first article was deleted, don't give up!" advice pertains to salvaging an article that was savable. How can we better salvage users? How can we better guide a user who has an essentially wrong idea of what Misplaced Pages is for - but is still trying to help in good faith - become a productive user? I think there's a real lack of "That wasn't what we want, but you can still help!" and more of an attitude of "If you're writing articles about your cat, get lost." I'd rather see, "We don't need an article about your cat, but how about your cat's breed or the history of cats or the animal control situation in the city where you live?" but I'm not sure how to go about that.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that editors write articles that are not worth anything. Myself and others recently discussed some possibilities for change at WP:Articles for Deletion. I was disheartened that my userfication idea was so disliked. Ikip (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Where's that discussion? I'm losing my sanity doing searching for "userfication prefix:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion" and then looking for "Ikip" on the page.... - Pointillist (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate my user name, because it is found inside Misplaced Pages. I also changed my name.

Re: Usersification.

• Proposal: Deletion_wars:_I_propose_a_novel_solution
• Suggestion_to_redirect_most_deleted_pages_to_a_userspace
• Any_deletion_tags_mention_that_users_can_request_userfication_of_deleted_content

Regarding similar discussion as here:

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#82.6.25_of_articles_put_up_for_deletion_are_by_new_users
• Misplaced Pages:VPP#82.6.25_of_articles_put_up_for_deletion_were_by_new_users

Ikip (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Article AfD Alerts

• Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-02-23/Article_Alerts

Wikiprojects can now automatically monitor AfDs! Maybe this is something we could do? Ikip (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me. A lot of the time when people nominate AfD they have the courteousy to notify the creator and/or other major contributors, but other times it totally gets slipped under the radar like some covert assassination. Tyciol (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit different. We're a clean up project as opposed to a creating project. We could use it to alert to issues with our pages though. I have a note in to see if this can be done via talkpage sections rather than static posts. -- Banjeboi 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Update. Ive started a subpage Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Article alerts that will show article alerts for our project pages. We have only so many but it is good to know when one is being considered for deletion or otherwise needs attention. -- Banjeboi 12:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at what gets alerted , I think that this is completely useless for this project. The only articles in the ARS scope are already tagged for deletion, and it is unlikely that an RFC, GA review, ... will start at the same time. Fram (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually these deal only with pages that our project banner is on, not the rescue template. For instance, it would alert that our main template was at TfD. I don't see a lot of harm in having it. Also I hope that the good folks who run that system can modify alerts so we would get a talkpage thread of anything that actually needs our attention. -- Banjeboi 13:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood. Objection withdrawn :-) Fram (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure could set it up to watch Category:Articles for deletion and Category:Proposed deletion, but I'm not 100% sure. I'll check.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You had the alerts set up in a weird way, so I fixed it. It's possible that you have a "template loop" error message, but that'll go away soon. In the meantime simply follow the link from you main page.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it! -- Banjeboi 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed invitation template for the ARS

Misplaced Pages has 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates, but the Article Rescue Squadron doesn't.

I posted an eariler version of this on several editors talk pages. All of those editors reactions were incredibly positive and thankful. But other editors posted a Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

This tag has been evaluated by several editors, most especially User:Jc37, and gone through several revisions.

So I am interested if this tag is okay to use for our group. What do you all think?

Hello, . You may be interested in participating in the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles in jeopardy of deletion, due to currently not being up to Misplaced Pages standards. You can join >> here <<. ~~~~

{| cellpadding=5 style="border: thin solid red; background-color: white"
|-
|]
|valign=top|Hello, {{SUBST:BASEPAGENAME}}.  You may be interested in participating in the ]. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles in jeopardy of deletion, due to currently not being up to Misplaced Pages standards.<br>You can join ]. ~~~~
|} <!--Template based on Template:WPSPAM-invite-n, one of the 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates -->

Ikip (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you really need the "Based upon what you have presented on your userpage"? The less done to equate WP:Rescue with inclusionism, the better, no? Why not just say "You may be interested in participating in..."? On another note, there's a typo on "squadron". yandman 13:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points, Thank you I changed this. Removing this would have avoided a lot of the past criticism. Ikip (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Different wording:

Hello, . The Article Rescue Squadron is made up of editors who improve deficit articles being considered for deletion at AfDs, acting within a short period of time to address concerns and so bring them up to Wiki standards. The pressure is on, and we don't always save them... but we do our best for the improvement of Misplaced Pages. If this interests you, you may seek more information on the Project Page. If you'd like to join, you can do so >> here <<.

Simple. To the point. Lets them know it is a pressure situation. Schmidt, 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Hello, Article Rescue Squadron. You may be interested in participating in the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue members are focused on rescuing articles in jeopardy of deletion. If this interests you, you may seek more information on the Project Page. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ikip (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Using Ikip's template I've started {{Article Rescue Squadron invite}} which produces:

Hello {{SUBST:BASEPAGENAME}}, You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing! Please visit the project page to learn more about improving Misplaced Pages articles considered by other editors as based upon notable topics. ~~~~

60 articles are now on the Article rescue squadron list

Wow, 60 articles on the list! Has the ARS ever had that many at one time?

I want to tell everyone thank you for their work in rescuing articles. I wish I had time to search all of those articles threatened with deletion and award barnstars to everyone that helped rescue an article by adding references. I have in a few cases, but there is just too many articles too save, and too much too do, in one day.

Please consider giving your fellow Article Squadron members a barnstar for there work. Misplaced Pages:ARS#Barnstars simply cut and paste the text from the "what to type" section. Ikip (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we perhaps suggest {{rescue}} not be added until there is a couple more deletes than keeps. E.g. List of the 100 wealthiest people was never going to need rescuing IMHO. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be opposed to that as the template is tied to the potential of the article not how the AfD is going. -- Banjeboi 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• We don't have to wait until an AFD is complete to remove a rescue tag. It is often possible to tell that enough has been done. We might also consider removing a tag if the article seems to be a truly hopeless case. This is the principle of triage which is needed in real-world rescue situations. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• • We don't have to wait but I would discourage it. Firstly the AfD last less than a week so having more eyes on an article and its AfD probably isn't a bad thing. Secondly, we're wrong sometimes and sometimes articles that reasonably look beyond hope aren't. I'd rather err on leaving a template an extra few days than removing it. I suppose if we honestly though someone was abusing the template we could rollback all their work but I'm not sure we're there yet. -- Banjeboi 13:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidates for Speed Deletion

I have been watching the CAT:CSD portal and have found that about 25% of the articles there have either been marked incorrectly (which I guess an admin should catch) or just need a little work. On most of the articles that deal with a person, they are notable under WP:BIO but no one (including the db tagger) has taken the time to check for notability references. If you're interested in finding more articles to save (as if there needed to be more to go through) I'd suggest check it out. OlYeller 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the obligation of A7. If there's no assertion of notability, the article goes *pfft*. If there is an assertion of notability, then the speedy tag gets declined and the article sent to Prod or AfD. Whether or not an A7-tagged article is notable is irrelevant to the CSD-A7 process, because speedy does not evaluate anything outside the article itself. Does it claim notability? Speedy declined. Does it NOT claim notability? It's gone. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that some admins think it's different and delete under A7 what does not belong under A7. Checking CAT:CSD and removing overeager taggings is thus something helpful. See also Pedro's comments on WT:RFA on that matter. Regards SoWhy 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I was curious as to whether or not an admin checked for references. So when I find an article in CSD that's worth saving (has sources for the info but doesn't cite it) what should I do? Generally, I add links to the sources in the talk page or just add the citations myself and removed the db. I know that the {{rescue}} is specifically for articles in AfD but would it be wrong to use it on an article that's tagged for speedy deletion? Sometimes I don't have time to add the citations on articles or could just generally use some help. I feel like it wouldn't be wrong to use it on CSD articles but I don't want to go against what the description of the tag specifically says it's to be used for. OlYeller 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My own view on that is the time frame. An AfD lasts around five days... give or take... and a Rescue tag night be added at day one or day five. If a resuce is to be mounted, we have to move fast and hope a closing admin makes notes of post-nomination improvements. When something is tagged for speedy, any improvement must happen within hours, minutes, or sometimes even seconds... not days. Even with the few days offered by an AfD we can be quite swamped, as there are so few of us and so much to do. So please continue as you are. If you find something being speedied that you can improve enough to address the reasons for the tag so that the tag can be removed, please do so. Perhaps we will one day have an "Emergency Rescue Squad", made up of editors who live on Red Bull, whose only task is to attempt rescue of articles that have been speedied. I do not mean to sound flippant, as you asked a very valid question. Simply put, ARS works at AfD, not CSD. Thank you. Schmidt, 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ARS Template at deletion

Our project's main template has been nominated for deletion, a third time. All input appreciated. Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 5#Template:Rescue -- Banjeboi 11:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the comments in the previous two discussions. The arguments there for keeping are still valid. (I could say more, but I suspect that I might become a victim of the slippery slope towards WP:NPA. -- llywrch (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be going reasonably well and civilly. Hopefully it will stay that way... -- Banjeboi 11:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be appropriate to tag this template for rescue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha! We're also listed under Lamest edit wars in Misplaced Pages:Lame#Metapages - "Put up for deletion 3 times. Can anyone see the irony and futility in such a gesture?" - priceless. -- Banjeboi 13:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

ARS tools subpage?

Looking for suggestions here. I think we have a number of tools suggested in various threads above but I think we should look to cleaning up this talkpage a bit. I wonder if a "Tools" subpage might be helpful - not sure if that's the best name. My hopes is that we'll end up workshopping some into testing and approval. Others that are mothballed can be saved for future reference of ideas that didn't fly as of yet. Idea if "tools" is the best title? Any objections or major plot flaws? My hope is we could clear this talkpage a bit and could simply point to sections on that subpage when we wanted to talk about items. -- Banjeboi 11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to set up auto message for those who apply {{rescue}} template

The latest rounds of alleged abuse did spark an idea that may help. Perhaps an auto message that posts to any editor who adds {{rescue}} that prods them to try improving the article themselves and points them to some ideas about and resources for rescuing. This may in effect help them help themselves. I think it woul be helpful to concurrently develop a subpage with some steps that ARS has found useful in improving articles (finding sources, better writing, appropriate categories, etc.) finding those with more experience in the subject (finding wikiprojects or editors that may know more in a given field) and how to respond to concerns raised at AfD (these seem to exist already so we could simply summarize and link. The target audience is newbies et al who may not get wikipedia's policies and now feel "their article" is being picked on. We offer some welcoming advice and a more neutral stance that all articles have the same requirements but perhaps some work and research may help the article they have rise to the standards. Our preliminary research noted above and elsewhere shows that a lot a wobbly article are created by newbies so i think this may help. If nothing else it installs a reasonable and friendly message on their talkpage - perhaps the first one they've gotten - that clearly sets forth that articles that don't come up to standards are deleted. As part of that message we could encourage them to draft their next article and ask for more eyes before launching it. In this way I think we might help slow down repeat frustration on all fronts and may help conserve community resources. Does that sound like a promising concept? -- Banjeboi 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• A Nobody had a similar welcome template that may be helpful for soem of the resources, also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes seems a good resource. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • And when he returns from "break", and if we can keep him focused (chuckle), Ikip had some terrific help pages for new editors that would serve very well for those being advised how best to affect a rescue. Schmidt, 09:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-article improvement shenanigans at Airi & Meiri AfD

Hi, Rescue Squadron. An article on a fairly specialized genre of Japanese entertainment has been targeted-- first incorrectly marked for Speedy Deletion, then Prodded (I removed this with a link to the Ja-Wiki article, which shows an extensive resume of the two), and then put up for AfD. All within a day of course. When I and another editor with experience in this very difficult-to-source article started working on it, the nominator began blanking out the article, and edit-warring. When I objected, he filed a complaint against me (I don't know the specifics, since I am here to work on articles, and try to avoid this kind of bullshit). Anyway, if anyone here cares, here it is in a nutshell: The Nominator, determined to delete this article without input from anyone else, has prevented work on the article, and driven away those who can work on it. I won't pursue actions against this editor, as I don't like to spend my time in this sort of thing. But this kind of thuggish anti-article improvement behavior is clearly detrimental to Misplaced Pages. Dekkappai (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm.

• a catalog describing promotional material (jlist.com) is definitely not a reliable source - He's right. jlist.com is an online catalog seller.
• blogs are not reliable sources, removing unsourced material - WP:PUFFery is lame... - These sources suck. This is a catalog seller offering "DISCREET SHIPPING SERVICE", this is a blog that links to free galleries of Japanese cheesecake, and this is a fansite dedicated to cataloguing incestuous lesbian pornography.
• remove unverfied primary source material and WP:SYNTH - Amazon, DMM, and K.M.Produce are catalog sellers.
• same thing as before WP:SYNTH - This is important! Look at how high their page counter is!
• same thing - Linked page is a fan wiki.
• copyvio - Probably not CV, but definitely a table of products copied from DMM, a catalog seller.
• not reliable source - This is a profile on a PPV network that showed some of their work. This is probably the most questionable removal; it's simple biographical data.

Now you.

• rv massive deletions to last version by Cherryblossom1982 - You revert him en masse, but the talk page? Crickets.

Thuggish anti-improvement behavior indeed, but I don't think I'm talking about the same person you're talking about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The user Dekkappai is continuing his thuggish behavior. --Cerejota (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New welcome to the project template

Hi, Article Rescue Squadron, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject! We are a growing community of Misplaced Pages editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

• WikiProject Article rescue squadron's (ARS) main aim is to help improve Misplaced Pages articles and content. If someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
• Sometimes we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Sometimes editors who are new to Misplaced Pages may perceive the deletion of "their" article as discouraging. Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
• The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
• Our primary work is improving Misplaced Pages articles and content. A more dynamic list with article links and descriptions are located at our rescue list.
• If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
• Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again — Welcome! ~~~~

Above is a new welcome to ARS template for those that sign up as members. The one thing that i think is needed still is a guide to rescuing articles with the three components: searching/identifying, rewriting/researching and how to participate at AfD more spelled out as a subpage here with links to existing sources. I think a modified version of this should be worked into a newsletter/project update at some point. -- Banjeboi 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we get the auto-list out of the box? For one, it stretches the box something awful. For another, people will generally want to keep that on their user or user talk, but not, say, the giant pink box or the picture of an ambulance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just a "I took the liberty of throwing up {{ARS/Tagged}}, just move it wherever you'd like on your user or talk pages to be able to see what articles ARS is working on." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't find it helpful but I know others do. My hunch is the newbies will leave the whole message as is for a while, which is why I felt it should cover more ground than not. And more experience folks will peel off the template and archive the rest. I'll give it a day or so to think but I do like the gist of the wording - that may help. I do want to avoid telling folks to install it though ... hmmm. -- Banjeboi 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It just makes it easier to peel off the template and archive the rest, and it makes the template less ugly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not opposed to finding a better wording but I am opposed to removing it. If we did we'd simply end up sending yet another message telling them about it. I feel the collapsed version is acceptable and least intrusive, not sure i agree it uglifies anything. -- Banjeboi 12:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting removing it from the template, then simply adding it to their talk page at the same time as the template. All you'd do is paste {{ARS/Tagged}}{{subst:ARS Welcome}} instead of just {{subst:ARS Welcome}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a permanent-like template rather than just a talk sections to someone's page as such seems like a bad idea. I know I'd be put off if someone did that. Isn't that generally discouraged? -- Banjeboi 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad girl art

Please join the discussion on this article. It's not yet up for AfD but is being gutted and is in need of rescue, thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done some clean-up there but you'll need to sort out restructuring the article to keep the images. You might want to seek experts in the area to help expand the article as if AfD were in process. -- Banjeboi 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not so much restructuring, but ensuring the images meet WP:NFCC. At the moment they just appear to be plastered on at random. Black Kite 00:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

To me that means the article needs to be restructured a bit so that a logical use of the images becomes more apparent to all. I don't know the history of the article or the genre so am only able to help so much. As an artfrm, however, it does seem logical that there would be a handful of images and that's what is there now. Perhaps it's one or two more than needed but it really needs someone who knows the stuff to discern what serves our reader best. There's a BBC series Antiques Road Show which has experts who could talk at length about the history and nuances of a single artwork proving background information including historical context over time whereas you and I might just say "my, what a lovely landscape". That article needs someone versed in the artform to help make an informed judgment call. -- Banjeboi 00:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's clearly no problem with having some images in an article about an artform; my only two concerns would be whether they are particularly notable or historical examples of the form, and whether this is linked to in the text. If it isn't, then they run the risk of just being decoration. Also, I wonder if we have any free images of the genre? Unlikely if the genre supposedly started in the 70s, but you never know. Black Kite 10:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh, it's bad girl comic art. I was expecting Russ Meyer. If you're looking for input, try WT:COMIC. This sounds like it's right up Sandifer's alley. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Josh Rosenthal (musician)

I removed a db-bio tag from this article as it claims notability. I've placed some improvement tags on the article but the author has repeatedly removed them () without improving the respective areas and without leaving any reasoning on the talk page. I've tried to get the author to ask me if they have questions but have not received a response. He's been putting in references to myspace which have been revered and he's been warned (by a bot) twice. He's recently added a picture which he claims is his but at the same time gives credit to someone else in a caption see here.

I'm getting frustrated with this article (and its author) and I'm looking for input from other. I bring it to the ARS becuase I think it could easily be taken the AfD if the issues aren't addressed. Thanks for your time. OlYeller 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would leave a friendly note on his talkpage. - All articles are subject to our notability guidelines but as a musician Josh Rosenthal (singer/songwriter) will be subject to Misplaced Pages:Notability (music). Please also note that Misplaced Pages regularly gets new articles on musicians who do not yet meet these guidelines and those articles are removed. To keep this article we need to be able to verify independent coverage in reliable sources (links to newspaper articles, for instance) and notability. -- Banjeboi 00:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I asked him if he could find some links to verify his claims on the talk page but he hasn't responded yet. I'll leave it on his talk page and see what happens. Thanks again. OlYeller 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. We were all new once! -- Banjeboi 02:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I left the message on his talk page a few minutes ago. I'll wait a few days and see if we can get some references before I take anymore action.OlYeller 01:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone else took the article to AfD here. Since then, the author has responded in the AfD and had missed the messages I was leaving for him. We're getting on the right track now but I'd appreciate it if others could help me verify the new references and contribute to the AfD. I'm still not sure if this article is rescuable which is why I haven't added the rescue tag yet but if you believe it is, please do so. Thanks for your time. OlYeller 19:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are now at least 3 references provided which, in my opinion, fulfill the general notability guidelines. I added the rescue tag. Sorry to have dragged this in here.OlYeller 19:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD Proposal

Contributing to some AfDs over the past two or three weeks was so horrifying and disturbing that I'm currently working on a proposal to change some things in the AfD process. Before I set it up in form to let the deletion troops place their s*** on it, we may discuss some points - and as a non-native speaker I will need your help anyway.

What I want to change:

• A nomination must be a bit more difficult. The nominator must have done some research on the topic before proposing or nominating an article for deletion. The results must be recapped and posted in the nomination.
• The nomination must begin with a half-sentence about the sort of topic, so that work is more easy for deletion sorting. It should be no problem to start like "This article about a musician..." and similiar. Maybe even a template could be created, to include the nominated article automatically to the respective categories. Something like: {{AfD template|bands and musicians=yes|living persons=yes|etc.}}.
• AfD will no longer last five days but must have a minimum of "votes" - 10, 15, 20 - I don't know. Let's discuss.
• Votes like "per nom.", "per above", "WP:XY" are prohibited. Background: "Votes" must be understandable and discussible for other people. A vote should also proof that the voter really has taken a look at the article, the sources and done a bit of own research. If someone is not able or willing to put five or ten minutes into an AfD, they should not vote. Editors have usually invested hours on an article and it's only fair to not just go through ten discussions in ten minutes.
• If significant new sources are found or if an article has gone under big changes while being at AfD, it can be relisted (there's a note currently, but with about no effect at all). Alternative: Under certain circumstances older voters can be contacted to re-vote. If they don't do, their old votes are dropped.
• Articles not falling under CSD can't be nominated for one week (or even longer?). Instead they should be tagged for the respective WikiProjects, giving the articles time to improve.

Well, take it as a starting point, not much more. Thank you. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 18:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, my idea of AfD is that it asks users their opinion on the validity of a Misplaced Pages guideline/policy in a certain circumstance. For instance, if someone says, "This band isn't notable under WP:BAND point 5," and 10 people agree, I think that's important. So in short, votes such as "per nom" or "per above" are completely relevant in my opinion. While AfD isn't a vote, the guidlines and policies are to be interpreted by the Misplaced Pages community. They aren't cut and dry for a reason. I don't think nominations are too easy at the moment. Every AfD gets handled to my knowledge. Having a minimum number of responses isn't a bad idea but perhaps people don't respond because they can't decide based on the info given. In that case, the AfD nominator hasn't given enough info so a concensus wasn't reached (the article stay for now). I sort of like the idea of having a waiting period between CSD and AfD noms but I just see a lot of crap getting to stick around for ~5 days. Those are just my opinions. I appreciate your hard work and hope something positive comes from this coversation and your hard work. OlYeller 19:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• In theory some of this is spot on but you may want to take each point separately. First off there is a place to discuss AfD proposals such as this so I presume you're looking for some initial feedback. That said this project includes deletionists as well and anyone who helps, IMHO, is welcome so you may wish to strike out (<s></s>) that bit here as it doesn't help much. I think WP:Before has a lot of merit but is doesn't seem to be enforced. Bad noms are made, fail but nothing happens to ensure the nom doesn't repeat. Not sure any easy solution there but I personally would like to see a checklist approach for most AfDs where one needs to work to improve an article with clean-up tags first and affirm that they cannot find sourcing to standards and the subject is not notable before the AfD is started. I am troubled but those who seem to be systematically deleting articles and with volume make many bad noms. Removing articles that shouldn't be here is fine but obviously that is not all that is happening. -- Banjeboi 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure how you could make a standard for this that wouldn't be gamed, gamed, gamed. If there are trivially available sources around and the nominator doesn't find them, other people will. (It's kind of the point of AFD.) Any nomination that would practically be prevented by this is harmless, whereas putting teeth on that leads to "The nominator didn't check thus-and-so, speedy keep" (even though "thus-and-so" is useless). Nominators are already expected to do their best, and if that's not good enough that's why AFDs last five days.
2. No nomination that isn't something patently obviously dumb succeeds without at least this. Again, it's instruction creep if you put teeth on it.
3. Why?
4. These votes are already given little consideration by closing admins unless they are trying to see how much success and impact an argument has. (Canvassing sadly washes out any hope of using this as a gauge of late, though.) They're harmless.
5. I see these articles relisted all the time, I don't know what you're talking about. Likewise, comments that are obviously about older versions of the article are dealt with accordingly in closes.
6. This is one of those perennial bad ideas. There are lots of really terrible article ideas that technically skate past A7 but obviously aren't going anywhere.

Excepting #3 and #6, you want to put teeth on things we already do all the time. AFD is already heavily criticized for being endlessly complex and bureaucratic, so adding more layers of complexity and bureaucracy will only aggravate this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please can you help on Airi & Meiri

This was tagged for rescue during the recent deletion debate, which I closed as no consensus. This is all very well and good, except that the AfD suggests there are some worrying problems with sourcing for notability - despite the fact that I have now removed the rescue template along with the AfD notice, can you guys perhaps undertake some additional cleanup to prevent the present inevitable return to AfD/DRV? Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a tag to Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer, but one editor keeps trying to delete it

http://en.wikipedia.org/Lucifer_and_the_Biscuit_Hammer Does one person have the right to declare an article beyond rescue, and delete the Rescue tag? Has that ever happened before? I tried speaking to him on his talk page, explaining that it could be saved, but he decided it couldn't, and has twice thus far removed the tag. Since it has been published in a notable magazine for years now, and then reprinted and sold separately in Japan as well as Taiwan, and has a rather large unlicensed English fanbase out there reading it and thus providing its a popular manga series, I think it could be saved. Please share your opinions. Dream Focus 00:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily think that anyone else removing it is proper, might you want to consider removing it yourself? This is pretty much Collectonians area of expertise, if she thinks it's not possible to find references for the article then it might indeed not be not be possible to find references for the article. Artw (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian tries to delete anything that doesn't have notable third party references. This includes recently a bestselling and classic novel http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Just_David And there are plenty of times in the past when something that didn't meet that ridiculous requirement were saved anyway. Dream Focus 01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron