Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:16, 14 January 2011 editSilver seren (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,833 editsm →Tell me about your ARS experience: Second indent← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:45, 14 January 2011 edit undoScottywong (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users26,031 edits →Tell me about your ARS experience: what are we waiting for?Next edit →
Line 114:		Line 114:
	:I have found that the rescue tag is being used far less often than it did when I started. I also see that there are less articles that are tagged that are in areas in which I am interested. I still check the cat regularly to look for viable articles, but usually find better possibilities at AfD that I can source without tagging and getting others involved. And we seem to be in the midst of yet another cycle of unsubstantiated accusations of vote-stacking being tossed around directly accusing all 350 people on that member list. I generally don't stress over unsuccessful rescues as much as I do about the accusations and clear bad faith on the part of those who wish to paint the entire ARS with a broad brush, and ignore the fact that they are directly accusing every member when they make such statements. I think this is part of why I don't tag articles more often. It has the possibility of bringing the entire AfD under attack (as opposed to scrutiny) by its simple placement. Bad nominations are made every day, and it's usually easy to identify at least one article to quietly source and rescue without bringing it to the attention of those editors who mistakenly conflate notability with importance. I guess I have been a little more focused on rescue as a purpose rather than a process, because I see the process as being a drama magnet. ''']''' <sup> ] \| ]</sup> 17:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)		:I have found that the rescue tag is being used far less often than it did when I started. I also see that there are less articles that are tagged that are in areas in which I am interested. I still check the cat regularly to look for viable articles, but usually find better possibilities at AfD that I can source without tagging and getting others involved. And we seem to be in the midst of yet another cycle of unsubstantiated accusations of vote-stacking being tossed around directly accusing all 350 people on that member list. I generally don't stress over unsuccessful rescues as much as I do about the accusations and clear bad faith on the part of those who wish to paint the entire ARS with a broad brush, and ignore the fact that they are directly accusing every member when they make such statements. I think this is part of why I don't tag articles more often. It has the possibility of bringing the entire AfD under attack (as opposed to scrutiny) by its simple placement. Bad nominations are made every day, and it's usually easy to identify at least one article to quietly source and rescue without bringing it to the attention of those editors who mistakenly conflate notability with importance. I guess I have been a little more focused on rescue as a purpose rather than a process, because I see the process as being a drama magnet. ''']''' <sup> ] \| ]</sup> 17:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
	::Ditto. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)		::Ditto. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
			:::I'm also in agreement that a "squadron" (or really an organization of any kind) is unnecessary for the purposes of rescuing articles. Rescuing is an individual effort. While individual members of the organization may be involved in genuine rescue work, the organization itself exists only as a way for like-minded individuals to organize themselves and push their POV about how WP should be. This is the genesis of the drama. This provokes other editors (who may not share your ideology) to feel like they need to push back to counteract the efforts of "the other side". Thus, a ] is formed. If both non-members and members alike are in agreement that an organization is unnecessary for rescuing articles, then what are we waiting for? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:45, 14 January 2011

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Tab header/talk page

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

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

faq page Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Article help Q: Can the Article rescue squadron (ARS) save my article from deletion? A: Not exactly. First off, Misplaced Pages is a 💕 and articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article. Secondly, if an article meets Misplaced Pages's policies on notability and reliable sourcing it likely will not be deleted. There are also alternatives to deletion which may be appropriate. The project members will do what they can as time allows. We suggest that you reference Tips to help rescue articles and the Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles Q: Will ARS help fix the rest of article problems after the deletion discussion? A: In theory, No. Often, however, individual members will assist after the discussion has closed. You may want to contact a related WikiProject to see if someone there can assist. Sometimes project members completely overhaul an article but in practice most changes are incremental, and you should take initiative to add sourcing and improve the article yourself. Many times other editors will post sources to the deletion discussion; if they meet our sourcing standards then feel free to apply them to the article. Scope Q: Does ARS work to rescue other content on Misplaced Pages (other than articles)? A: While articles remain our main focus, poorly-formed encyclopedia content can be found in other namespaces. If content up for deletion, such as a template or image, is poorly-formed and you feel it can be fixed, go ahead and add it to the Rescue list, to request the ARS' consideration. Please be aware that unlike articles, templates and categories often change and are renamed to serve our readers. Q: Does ARS contribute to guideline and policy discussions? A: Similar to articles, policies and content are not exclusively controlled by any individual(s). If you think ARS should know about a policy discussion you can post a neutral notification, such as, "There is a discussion about topic at _____." on the ARS Talk page. Avoid even the appearance of telling anyone how to think or vote in the discussion— it's very important to keep the message neutral when inviting people to participate. See WP:Canvassing for clarification regarding appropriate discussion notifications. Q: What if I object to what the ARS is doing? A: ARS is no different from any of the hundreds of Wikiprojects in that we collaborate to improve Misplaced Pages. We are a maintenance Wikiproject, and as such our scope is not subject-focused (like a WikiProject focused on a specific sport, country or profession), as much as policy-focused to determine if content adheres to Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and notability. We try to determine if an article meets Misplaced Pages's notability guidleines as well as is it verifiable to reliable sources. We're also apt to suggest merging, listifying, redirecting and deleting as appropriate. Notifying the Article Rescue Squadron is essentially a means to request assistance with an article or content that one feels meets notability guidelines, or should be retained for other reasons. The goal is to improve articles and other content, to benefit our readers. All are welcome to help ARS improve the encyclopedia, just as at any of the other WikiProjects, which encompass a variety of views and interests. No canvassing Q: Does this project canvass editors to keep articles? A: No. The goal of the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is to clean up content that would otherwise be deleted. By necessity, this involves examining the deletion discussion to see what the problems with the article are, and then remedying them. If done correctly, this article cleanup improves the encyclopedia. If an article nominated for deletion is improved and retained on Misplaced Pages by this process, vis-à-vis addressing a nominator's concerns, the nominator hasn't "lost". Rather, the encyclopedia has won. Using this talk page Q:What about identifying and pointing out specific users who are nominating a lot of articles for deletion without apparent due cause? This talk page is for co-ordinating matters related to this project's purpose, which is rescuing content on notable topics from deletion. This is not a forum for dispute resolution. If there are issues with an individual user, talk to them personally or make a report or request at an appropriate noticeboard.

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Tab header/talk page

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

Article Rescue Squadron

faq page Frequently asked questions

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Header

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Article Rescue Squadron keeps getting slandered

A recent RFC about an active member of the ARS, has caused a lot of people to go there just to bash the ARS itself, both on the RFC page itself Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden and its talk page. People seem to be attacking the ARS more than the particular editor. The nominating editor is also drafting a proposal to dramatically limit the ARS User:Snottywong/ARS proposal. Seems like something that the ARS members might want to be involved in. Dream Focus 22:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus, this has nothing to do with the core work of the ARS, which is (in case it had slipped your mind) improving articles which are nominated for deletion. Your posting here is akin to adding a {{rescue}} tag to the RFC itself, solely in order increase the chances of more people who agree with you turning up there. pablo 22:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the ARS since that is the only reason some of them are going after one of its active members, as evident by their comments. Dream Focus 22:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Which articles are you hoping to "save" by posting these allegations here exactly? pablo 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say a fair number of us are following CW's tar-and-feathering, and its fair to place a note here noting that ARS-slagging there is in full force like a baptist preacher at a tent revival talking about methodists. That being said, I agree with pablo that the RfC is not about the ARS, so I've chosen to ignore that and I encourage others to do the same. I've only skimmed Snotty's proposal, but most of the ideas seem quite bureaucratic and absolutely unworkable, but I'll comment on the talk page of the draft if I decide to explain in detail. Some vocal editors have complained about the ARS since its inception, despite positive coverage in the media, its all the same rehash.--Milowent • 23:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the same rehash; it's the same issues, Milo; always has been. The thing is that they are pretty much all editor issues rather than project issues. pablo 23:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a psychologist, but what's that phenomenon that causes people to blame groups instead of individuals, because it's easier to do so. Anyone know? So instead of someone saying the Colonel or Dream or me or whoever are their problem, they say "THE ARS". If there was a formal deletionist squad, perhaps we'd do the same thing. I can get irritated at The Wordsmith for his recent spate for AfDs noms which had a number of bad noms, but I'm not inclined to just slag the kid as if he's not a human being but some evil force.--Milowent • 23:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know offhand, but part of the reason in this case, and one of the valid project issues, was the worry that the ARS would act as a (and I am quoting from memory) "general inclusionist noticeboard". That was not unfounded given Ikip's attempt to merge various projects (and worse, their 'membership') into here, and that same issue is evident with Dream Focus' post above. pablo 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC) just for the record Heh … seems I was quoting myselfand the quotation I was looking for was "general-purpose deletion noticeboard" pablo 00:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. If all people used the ARS for was to increase sourcing, there would be no issue. By picking AfDs carefully, getting good sources, engaging collegialy with those who disagree, and not contesting existing consensus on inclusion standards, I rescue articles consistently. Occasionally, people still try to tar me (despite my vocal rejection of "ARS membership") with that brush, but then I trot out an article or two that I've rescued and substantially improved and the objections seem to dry up. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I would also suggest that the best way to improve the reputation of ARS in the general community is to rise above the petty arguments and just do the work. The vast majority of WP editors are neither deletionists nor inclusionists. Being at either end of that spectrum is fine, and I think, having the extremes helps, so long as we remain civil. But if you are an extreme inclusionist, attacking deletionists, your arguments will be dismissed by the vast majority of editors. I would point to Uncle G as an good example we should follow. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with pablo's comment that there isn't a problem with the way ARS is set up, but there is a problem with some (or perhaps many) of the editors who are members. The aforementioned proposal that I threw together was a collection of thoughts I'd had (some of which were inspired by ideas that Jclemens had expressed previously) for ways to reform the ARS such that the editors who give it a bad name would no longer be able to do so. This is likely why Dream would immediately view it as "limiting", because it closes all the loopholes that are frequently abused to push along the radical inclusionist battle plan (like legal canvassing, votestacking, etc). I don't have any delusions that my proposal will be taken seriously by very many ARS members, but I think it is a useful starting point for a discussion on how to fix the obvious problems with this organization, as perceived by the Misplaced Pages community in general. And you can't deny that there is a strong perception that this organization suffers from some major problems. SnottyWong 23:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Vote stacking and canvassing? Indeed. If the article isn't improved, then the number of people turning out isn't relevant. And many people such as yourself actively participate in articles tagged, and almost always say delete. So tagging something for rescue isn't just attracting people who vote one way or another. Your mention of a "radical inclusionist battle plan" is absolutely absurd. Dream Focus 02:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I leave my name here as a member because I still feel that the work of rescuing articles is valid. I don't usually bother to tag articles anymore, and instead just go ahead and work on the articles I find at AfD that I believe I can rescue. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I also check the ARS category regularly, but often find things there I am not willing to spend my time on. I read the comments of those who say the ARS is just a vote-stacking mechanism, but just like in every previous MfD, there has never been any proof of this. I don't comment on a tagged AfD unless I have added something to the article, the work has already been done by someone else, or there is a glaring violation of WP:BEFORE. If another MfD is started, or an actual proposal is made at VP, I will certainly comment, but there are probaly a lot of other editors like me who don't get into the drama of it all, and just like to rescue articles. I won't waste any of my time on a proposal until it leaves user space and is actually put before the community. Jim Miller 00:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair play Jim (and JClemens, and Uncle G, and many others). There are "article rescuers" and there are people who identify as "members" of ARS– and they are not necessarily the same thing. pablo 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying that since I consider myself a member of the ARS, i'm one of the bad guys? :P Silverseren 00:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hellz noe. I suppose you could break down "There are "article rescuers" and there are people who identify as "members" of ARS– and they are not necessarily the same thing" as "article rescuing" does necessarily require membership of the ARS, and membership of the ARS does not necessarily mean that one is an "article rescuer". pablo 00:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

FedEx Express Flight 647

FedEx Express Flight 647 is currently at AFD. Is this one worthy of rescue? Sources available include Aviation Safety Network and the NTSB report of the investigation into the accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

*takes out reference gun* RAT-A-TAT-TAT! *blows smoke from the barrel* Silverseren 09:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never gotten into the air crash AfDs in any detail, i don't really understand why people get so crazed about ones that have sourcing. Do ones like this all need separate articles or would they be more useful if combined into an article like Aircraft incidents of 2003? I have no idea.--Milowent • 14:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ARSB

Template:ARSB has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

It looks like these are not in use, but thought you might want to know. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants a copy of it, or for me to move it to a subpage of this project, just let me know. Plastikspork _―Œ 19:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Creation Squadron?

Now, I know it doesn't fall under our purview, but I just wanted to make a suggestion about some articles that should be created. If you guys don't want to do it, then I can just take it over to WP:RA. Anyways, an hour or so ago, I somehow found myself browsing through Misplaced Pages Review's forum. Don't ask me how it happened, it just did (At first I thought I was on 4chan, but with better spelling and sentence structure).

While browsing through there, I came across this thread. And I thought it would be pretty amusing if someone went about and created all of the articles (at least the actual notable ones) that they mentioned on there. I have no idea if that would mean we are supporting or opposing Misplaced Pages Review, but I still think it would be funny as hell. A couple of the subjects they mentioned do have articles, so make sure you check for that.

If you guys feel up to it, I think it would be a lot of fun. Oh, and I call Gottlob Espenlaub. He's mine. >:3 Silverseren 06:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone ignoring me? :( Silverseren 21:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to involve lots of extra work for people to again discuss articles which already have been nominated for deletion and a decision has been made to delete the article. Ulner (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

...wha? What are you talking about? As far as I know, none of these articles have been made before. Gottlob Espenlaub hasn't, at least. What do you mean? Silverseren 21:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Its just Misplaced Pages Review have been known to attack legendary editors such as ANobody and Benji. Im not sure they deserve any of our attention. Gottlob Espenlaub has a cool sounding name though, will look out for when you create the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care all that much about WR. It's just the fact that their complaining is highly useful to making articles. I would have never ended up fixing up the article on Hogg (novel) if they hadn't made a thread complaining about it. And don't they attack pretty much everyone anyways? Essentially, anyone who is semi-important or known on WP gets attacked by them. I found the instances where I was mentioned on WR to be highly amusing. Tarc has to try much harder if he wants to insult me. :P Silverseren 22:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WR is an interesting place, many there are negative about wikipedia but they are also very bright. I have created a few articles before that posters there were "shocked" didn't exist.--Milowent • 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to their complaining, i've written Gottlob Espenlaub, Charles Coolidge Parlin, National Analysts, William Caskey Swaim, William Jordan (actor), and Murder of Carlos Castro. Silverseren 21:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a pointy way of deciding which articles to write. Almost like you're writing articles out of spite, or to "teach them a lesson". That may not be your intention, but that's how it comes off. Just my 2¢. Interesting articles though. SnottyWong 23:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Like i've said before, I don't care what they think or about WR in general. They just give me good article topics that I wouldn't have thought of otherwise. Silverseren 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Snotty, that's glass half empty way to view it. You have some of these disaffected academic phd types over there that do identify articles that should exist, like Tureng Tepe (to pick one i saw suggested and subsequently created). They don't need to be taught a lesson, they've just tired of the project (or been banned from it for whatever drama of years ago).--Milowent • 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems: a trove of articles waiting to be rescued

I'm not sure to what extent ARS members are aware of the large source of rescuable articles that get listed at WP:CP. These articles get listed because they contain copyright violations, and if no-one deals with them after 7 days, they usually get deleted or stubbified. Often they're about quite notable subjects: for example, today I blanked the very notable Insurgency in Ogaden. We also have the notable Australia – United Arab Emirates relations, Jackie Fields and History of Nicosia fast heading towards redlink territory.

Rescuing these articles would (a) help save worthy articles from deletion; and (b) help address copyright violations. (Sorry for the cheeky attention-grabbing edit summary) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions - I've snagged Jackie Fields and am fixing that one up now. I didn't actually see the edit summary, but now I'm curious! - ManicSpider (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

- Nice one - it's not often you find a world boxing champion on the scrapheap. By the way, if anyone wanted to nominate a complete copyvio rewrite at DYK, you'd certainly have my support. The DYK rules don't directly address whether you can nominate a copyvio rewrite, but in my view it would constitute a "new article". --Mkativerata (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that works - I rewrote one the other day and people suggested I put it up for a DYK but I wasn't sure how to interpret the rules. In one sense, you have increased the article five-fold from nothing (deleting the CopyVio material) but another interpretation might be that you've written less than the original inelligble article (if you see what I mean). - ManicSpider (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In my view, a complete rewrite of a copyvio is from scratch, so it shouldn't matter how long the copyvio was. If you can get any of them above 1500 characters of prose (the minimum for a new creation), I'd suggest giving it a go. Let me know if you need any help: the rules of DYK are labyrinthine and more of them are not in any way related to supporting the creation of good content.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a Rescue-to-FA Bounty

I propose that the Article Rescue Squadron sponsor a competition for the Misplaced Pages:Bounty board. I am putting down $10 of my own money as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation in the name of the first editor, or group of editors who takes an article tagged with {{Rescue}} in 2011, and not only rescues it from AfD, but with six months of it's AfD closure elevates it to Featured Article status. I also challenge my fellow ARS members to make a matching donation.

The only criteria I would add is that it:

Has to have been Nominated for Deletion on or after January 1, 2011. No fair resting on our already accomplished laurels.
Has to have been tagged for {{Rescue}} during the debate and have been significantly improved between the time of Rescue tag and the close of the debate. Anything we would add to our Hall of Fame would qualify for the Bounty.
Of those articles which are Bounty-qualified, the first article to reach Featured Article status would win.

I'd like to get some input from the Project before I go ahead and post the Bounty. Is there anything I should add/tweak/change? Do you guys agree with this? Or would this just add fuel to the haters' fires? -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea in general. I'm not sure what others would think about it. - Hydroxonium (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with the idea in principle and would stump up some $$ to see it done (frankly, I think my $$ is safe!). Just a couple of caveats: ARS members would have to recuse themselves from any FAC discussion, and the deletion nom would have to be genuine. One sticking point could be FAC: that's a venue under a lot of stress with not enough reviewers, so they may object to their forum being used for reward (even though the $$ is going to WMF).--Mkativerata (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tell me about your ARS experience

I think ARS is the most important thing on Misplaced Pages. Fixing articles that would otherwise be deleted is extremely important. I have found it to be very hard work but also rewarding in and of itself. It's also great when others appreciate my efforts. — BUT — The dicussions in AfD and having others actively working against my efforts is awful and I find it extremely tiring. I've only rescued a handful of articles, but the ones I did, took — on average — 10 hours of effort each. And it can all be undone with 30 seconds of effort on somebody else's part. That's a 1200 to 1 ratio.

I ended up taking a wikibreak for well over a month after having rescued just a few articles. And watching what other ARS members go through is very depressing. I haven't been doing any rescuing or voting in AfD's since I've been back.

I have been keeping tabs on things though. And I have noticed the ARS superstars and they keep plugging away and they don't seem to suffer from what I was going through. Or maybe they just don't show it. Either way it's very inspirational.

There are over 350 members in ARS but I only seem to see a couple dozen (the superstars) that are really active. I'm wondering if the rest happened to have the same trouble I have. I thank my lucky stars that the ARS superstars are here and helping out. I'm wondering how they cope with all the negative stuff or if everybody's ARS experience is different than mine. - Hydroxonium (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A userbox on your user page reads, "This user is a true Wikipedian and allows everyone in the universe to completely rewrite every edit he has written on Misplaced Pages." Presumably, being open to having your edits completely rewritten would include being open to having your edits deleted as well. Why does being a "true Wikipedian" cause you so much stress that you have to go on wikibreak? You may not be heeding this essay faithfully enough. Which AfD was so painful that it prompted the wikibreak? SnottyWong 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeebus.--Milowent • 15:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand completely where you're coming from. There are over 70 articles nominated per day, give or take. So many seem to be poorly referenced, badly written, suffering from CopyVios - but the subjects are notable. You mentioned the maths - it's easy to feel despair when you're continuously playing Sisyphus pushing articles uphill. I explained ARS to my friend like being an Emergency Room doctor. You save who you can, and you just have to let the rest go. I left for a while because I felt people were more eager to do the easy delete than the hard-work fix and it made me a bit sad. But at the end of the day, people will come and go. Articles will be created, edited and deleted. All things change. I have helped to preserve Smound, which was an AfD for patent nonsense that turned out to be not-so-nonsensical, Virginia Whitehill who was nominated as a non-notable BLP who was one of the main movers of the reproductive rights movement in Texas. I think in the end you have to savor your moments of victory, and give in gracefully when the consensus falls against you. It's 3am, so this may not make sense. ^_^ - ManicSpider (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Afd's are almost always a gamble and gambling is inherently stressful. Especially when one's invested some time in finding and inserting sources. As far as stress, one needs a thick skin to participate in WP in general, that's not going to change anytime soon. I use a couple of stress-reduction strategies. One is to make only one keep post, but include as many links as possible at that time. Mentioning their publishers is good and only takes a few more moments. Then I rely on the superstars to notice and do followup argumentation if necessary - wimpy, but I tell myself, better that than burning out. I suppose their natural talents and life experiences have given them resiliency and debating skills and so it's sort of a division of labor. A dedicated researcher has a lot of value here, sometimes you have to dig thru umpteen pages of irrelevant or unreliable material. The superstars do freely pass out compliments to the researchers and that helps :) The other strategy is...scheduling rescue attempts...anticipating that you'll lose some, that any one may be stressful...balancing act. Novickas (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found that the rescue tag is being used far less often than it did when I started. I also see that there are less articles that are tagged that are in areas in which I am interested. I still check the cat regularly to look for viable articles, but usually find better possibilities at AfD that I can source without tagging and getting others involved. And we seem to be in the midst of yet another cycle of unsubstantiated accusations of vote-stacking being tossed around directly accusing all 350 people on that member list. I generally don't stress over unsuccessful rescues as much as I do about the accusations and clear bad faith on the part of those who wish to paint the entire ARS with a broad brush, and ignore the fact that they are directly accusing every member when they make such statements. I think this is part of why I don't tag articles more often. It has the possibility of bringing the entire AfD under attack (as opposed to scrutiny) by its simple placement. Bad nominations are made every day, and it's usually easy to identify at least one article to quietly source and rescue without bringing it to the attention of those editors who mistakenly conflate notability with importance. I guess I have been a little more focused on rescue as a purpose rather than a process, because I see the process as being a drama magnet. Jim Miller 17:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Silverseren 19:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement that a "squadron" (or really an organization of any kind) is unnecessary for the purposes of rescuing articles. Rescuing is an individual effort. While individual members of the organization may be involved in genuine rescue work, the organization itself exists only as a way for like-minded individuals to organize themselves and push their POV about how WP should be. This is the genesis of the drama. This provokes other editors (who may not share your ideology) to feel like they need to push back to counteract the efforts of "the other side". Thus, a battle is formed. If both non-members and members alike are in agreement that an organization is unnecessary for rescuing articles, then what are we waiting for? SnottyWong 19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)