Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:00, 9 June 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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

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.

This Wikiproject has been mentioned by several media organizations: The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 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. Jennifer Schuessler (8 March 2008). "Gone to Deletopedia". New York Times. Adversus Misplaced Pages (17 September 2008). "Adversus Misplaced Pages". PC Actual. John Broughton (2008). "Ch.19 - Deleting Existing Articles". Misplaced Pages: The Missing Manual. O'Reilly.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

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 563 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

Recognition of efforts

Barnstars project

PROPOSAL: Past successful deletion debates Sub article

New idea to recognize efforts

Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class

Example

Recognition of embattled users

Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

Medals

ARS tools and possible tools discussion

AFD summaries

Candidates for Speed Deletion

Where do I go to make an alert?

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

Automatically adding references to articles

ARS "How to" potential content

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

Newby editors survey

ARS project development

Wikiads

Newsletter

Mottos

XfD theory discussions

These may translate into proposals and they may help inform our "how to" guide.

WP:PRESERVE

A discussion of interest.

Poll: Do you support a bot which informs major contributors of an AFD?

Proposal to survey recently closed AFD's that employed the {{rescue}} tag

Contest 2?

Some proposals

To move forward, I have a few proposals for the project:

• Rename, because "Squadron" has a military sound to it and "Misplaced Pages is not a battleground." Why not just title the group "Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue" just dropping off the "Squadron" or "Misplaced Pages:Article Rescuers" or "Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Helpers".
• Vote to elect a triumvirate of "leaders" (instead of something bland like "moderators," we could always have something more fun like "consuls"; Roman traditions aside, the term sounds like a "council" and the moderators would be more advisors anyway, offering their "counsel" if you see where I am going?) to help guide the project forward. Such "leaders" must have evidence of having been established members of the project with multiple rescue credits; i.e. those with a certain degree of credibility that they can bring to such a position.
• Continue the effort on the contest proposal at Misplaced Pages:Article rescue contest 2. Perhaps the first task of the consuls could be to judge this contest?

Sincerely, --A Nobody 03:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Article Rescue Squad is a cool sounding name and folk have said its one of the reasons they join. The pick of helpful civilian vehicles shows were not militaristic so Im opposed to the first proposal. 2)Im neutral about having leaders , although if we do consuls would be a cool name, although their main function was often to direct the army lol. I think we should have more than three, there are too many outstanding members. 3) I support the contest idea , and would definitely participate if I had more wiki time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

On the name I prefer including WikiProject in the name, as mentioned before, but if not, how about Misplaced Pages:Article Rescuers?

On the issue of a council, you are barrelling down the Esperanza route with that and will get the projecte deleted or closed.

Don't care about article rescue contests; I'm a deletionist after all, must maintain standards. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a bureaucracy would fix the problems, however well-meaning. You run the risk of increasing the problem of insularity and hostility, and even if you have a perfectly fair and even-handed council you run up against the general iconoclasm of Misplaced Pages editors with regard to empowered authority figures. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Any "problems" have to be fixed at their cause, not symptoms. I see the following:

• Criticisms of the project are really criticisms of actions by some specific members rather than of the project itself.
• Whether we have the ARS or not, we will still have rapid fire keep and delete votes rather than arguments in AfDs. We will still have accounts that show up and comment without making any effort to look for sources or improve the articles. A solution here would be requiring anyone who comments in an AfD to demonstrate evidence of having actually looked for sources and attempting to have improved the article in some manner per WP:BEFORE. To be blunt, I don't really care what the opinion of an article is by anyone who is not interested in helping to improve it. We are first and foremost here to build an encyclopedia, not serve as self-appointed judges. Even when I argue to delete, I typically at least make some format fixes while seeing if anything can be done to the article and link to source searches in my delete argument. If I can do it, so can others. And if people are not interested or willing to improve content, then what are they here for? The kind of delete argument that actually carries any legitimacy is one from someone who says, "I tried finding sources here, here, and here, and did what I could with the article, but am still unable to verify its contents or rewrite it in a suitable manner. If someone can prove me wrong, great, but I am unable to anything further." and then keep an eye on the discussion and if someone does indeed improve it, take that into consideration rather than the hit and run "per noms" that never return to the discussions even if it is improved. Put simply, certain members of the ARS that you criticize are responding to larger issues and these causes are what needs to be addressed first. A cough drop may help with coughing, but you need to take some pills to actually cure the disease.
• We need to allow for more in the way of transwiking. I have done large numbers of transwiking to some of the wikis for which I am an admin, but we need more of that. Deletion without even transwiking transwikiable articles is downright unacceptable and rude. So long as the item is not a hoax, copy vio, or libelous, but is verifiable and relevant to someone, it must be discussed in AfDs where else it can be moved to and in fact actually moved there. Again, if anyone is unwilling to be considerate in at least that regard, then what the heck? We need to make a list of editors who are admins on various wikis that are willing to transwiki so they can be contacted during AfDs.
• Now as an idea for reform, perhaps, membership should be limited to those who have rescued articles, i.e. you become a "member" by having presented evidence of having rescued articles rather than before ever doing so.
• We must get greater participation in AfDs. We need a bot to notify all editors whoever worked on an AfD of the AfD. We have the same minority of accounts showing up in AfDs that cause them to fracture down the same divide. Look at the MASH episode AfDs or bilateral relations ones and you have the same half dozen accounts saying to delete versus the same half dozen to keep with only a handful of wild card accounts that show up. How does this actually reflect consensus? It looks nothing more than a game between two teams who repeat the same things against each other and who cannot possibly be experts on every single one of say those bilateral relations issues. We need much more from actual article writers and people familiar with sources and not the same partisan divides. Two solutions are to require anyone who comments in the AfD to show evidence of having looked for sources and having worked on the article and to notify anyone who has ever worked on the article of the AfD (people can always opt out of such notices).

Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said. +1 --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 21:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Anyway, I have been working on User:A_Nobody/Inclusion_guidelines#Table_of_notable_fictional_universes, which anyone is welcome to expand and/or correct, to give us a sense with at least regards to fictional elements as to where we can transwiki to. Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything except point 2. There are some topics that are most certainly not notable (like for example my back garden) and any prerequisites on nominating or commenting at AFDs threatens to allow us to be completely overrun by nonsense articles. I slightly disagree with point 1, insofar as the project acts as a focal point for inappropriate behaviour at times. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably your back garden would not pass WP:V or WP:RS. We don't need N for that. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My back garden certainly doesn't pass WP:V, because I don't have one :D But discussing the repeal of WP:N isn't a matter for here. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

how about the name Article Rescue Team? i like the idea of a bot to notify anyone who edited an article that its at AfD; pohick (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC

There is an RfC underway that proposes to amend CSD to allow for greater use of administrative judgment. There was a (long) discussion at the CSD talk page that led to the RfC.   M  23:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks/keep up the good work

I just wanted to drop a quick note saying the work you guys do is invaluable. I was impressed by the research skills of those who came to the aid of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rajeev Janardan (just closed as keep). Thanks to your efforts I now have more material to expand the article with (when I get to it). Good job guys. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are most welcome. Perhaps we should maintain a page of testimonials like this to inspire and encourage such laudable efforts. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hidden category on previously tagged pages?

The number of articles tagged is quite large - I'm guessing 1500-2000 at least. Obviously many statistics will be meaningless as anyone can tag any article so we don't control the quality of items coming to us. However I think it is helpful to note how many tagged articles are at each class of article including a growing number at GA. In addition I think it's helpful to note how many do a DYK blurb thus were featured on the main page. I'd like to find a way to add a category to the talkpage or article page so we can keep track of former articles. Any ideas? -- Banjeboi 08:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea - something like the way that pages formerly listed at AfD have a tag on the talkpage with links to previous discussions, you mean? I think those are added manually (usually by the closing admin}), maybe this would also have to be a manual addition. It would certainly be interesting to keep track of what happens to these articles post-AfD. pablo_hablo. 08:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were very unobtrusive, something that also incorporated adding the category, yes. If I get real inspired I'll try to do a manual count by month for those months we have a record of. -- Banjeboi 09:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Stats

Adding tweakability to rescue template's find sources parameter

Here I've asked for help modifying our {{rescue}} template so we can tweak the "find sources" parameter to a specific string. I know this was talked about somewhere but as things have quieted a bit this seemed a easy thing to persue. -- Banjeboi 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently tagged articles into chronological order

Hey all, I'm working toward a system whereby our items are listed in the currently tagged list by date sent to XfD rather than date tagged for rescue. In theory those listed sooner need more attention as their time at XfD is likely running out. If I can get the bot to do this will look toward that solution. -- Banjeboi 01:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Is there a policy that says we shouldn't rescue tag disamgibuation pages? That argument was recently used at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination) and the rescue tag on the page was repeatedly removed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends. If the dab page is up for deletion because it's badly formed and could use a fix-up, sure. If it's up for deletion because it's conceptually flawed, then probably not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That is vandalism, pure and simple. The first AFD ended in Keep, and was then overturned apparently. The article was deleted, someone protested, and it was restored. Then, someone went and erased most of the content, in a clear act of vandalism. Anyway, you can post a Rescue tag anywhere. If someone erases it, revert them, as I have done. We need more attention brought to this article to determine what exactly is going on here. Dream Focus 06:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no policy that disambiguation pages can't be tagged for rescue. In this case especially as ARS has seen dozens of these articles come through our Wikiproject and have worked to resolved various AfD issues; there is no reason that this AfD cannot also benefit from more eyes on it. The issue isn't how can this one be improved but what best serves our readers. Frankly I think that the group working to address all bilateral article issues should be handed this one to see of there is some policy that makes sense. At the end of the day we are here for our readers, what helps inform them the best. ARS can offer some informed and often outside and dispassionate views. I know I don't care that much about those articles so comment on them what it seems obvious what to do or if it needs to be stated I'm uncertaintain so would rather keep. These are valid opinions that can help in any community discussion. -- Banjeboi 09:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what? This is the project that improves articles up for deletion. If the article can't be meaningfully improved, then it doesn't have anything to do with this project. We've been over this repeatedly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on what this project and its members can do or not is duly noted. There is broad concensus that ARS is here to help rescue content at XfD and there are multitudes of ways this is accomplished. The same spirit that ARS was empowered by the community at the last RfC that was done to stop your edit-warring here was that ARS may be able to help and more eyes on community discussions was hardly counter to consensus building. Rescuing content includes many issues including what title is best for an article. There is also the issue that generally there is little need to remove the rescue tag oonce it's there. It's a relatively short process and the tag should be removed by the closer. As your previous efforts to remove the {{rescue}} tag should be painfully obvious it causes more disruption to remove it even if placed in error. By edit-warring your magnifying a situation and making it all about you. Not sure if that's the goal but that certainly seems to be the outcome. -- Banjeboi 11:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You just gabbed on about me for a paragraph there instead of addressing my point. This project still isn't the project that decides what "best serves the readers." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been protected without including the tag, which, in my humble opinion, is the correct decision. PhilKnight (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, that decision, to protect to a preferred version, is counter to policy and therefore a poor choice. And AMIB, your rather myopic stance maybe helped if I restate and include the information only about ARS? Let's have a read - There is broad concensus that ARS is here to help rescue content at XfD and there are multitudes of ways this is accomplished. The same spirit that ARS was empowered by the community at the last RfC was that ARS may be able to help and more eyes on community discussions was hardly counter to consensus building. Rescuing content includes many issues including what title is best for an article. There is also the issue that generally there is little need to remove the rescue tag oonce it's there. It's a relatively short process and the tag should be removed by the closer. As your previous efforts to remove the {{rescue}} tag should be painfully obvious it causes more disruption to remove it even if placed in error. Again this project is not here to serve your desires and decrees, we work with and by the community's support. -- Banjeboi 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The last RFC established exactly what I said above. If it's up for deletion because it needs to be improved, this project is relevant. Otherwise, it isn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I promised myself I wouldn't get sucked into the ongoing baiting and attempted-deletion of this project, once its 9-day hiatus had expired. But against my better instincts, I popped in. One thing I'd like to point out here. An article that cannot be improved does not belong at AfD. It should be speedy-deleted. Some editors are of the opinion that nothing at AfD can be improved. Others are of the opinion that things can and should be improved. For editors who, in lieu of actual editing-work, routinely crap on articles by smearing tags all over the top of them to object to a tag which encourages others to work on it during the one-week period it is on the chopping block is the height of hypocrisy. Dekkappai (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You can have a page which is perfect for what it is, but what it is isn't appropriate for the project. This is especially common when you move out of article space. A template that doesn't do anything useful, a non-free image that doesn't illustrate anything, a dab page that doesn't disambiguate. This project has a wide scope and that's fine, but its role is most certainly not deciding "what best serves our readers". It's improving things up for deletion that can be improved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And your definition of what this Wikiproject is and isn't have been routinely rejected by the community. The spirit of consensus-building, that seems to be lost in your statements, is that broader input is usually helpful to determining consensus. In this case it concerns a bilateral article of which this project has been quite involved. If there was a disambiguation page discussion on a LGBT topic I would be quite surprised in the LGBT project wasn't asked for input. Your overly strict definitions of who is allowed to do what is not helpful, it's good that you want to improve content but directing other volunteers here on what they are allowed to do is not. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not the project to seek broader input for determining consensus. We don't need a wikiproject that brings its members to "help" at deletion discussions, with a scope that includes any deletion discussion at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Any wikiproject can offer input at a discussion and ARS specializing in XFD. This AfD may therefore benefit from our input. -- Banjeboi 01:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to have outright confirmation that the project exists primarily to bring its members to comment at deletion discussions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, please stop mischaracterizing this wikiproject. ARS specializing in XFD is not the same as "the project exists primarily to bring its members to comment at deletion discussions". Your toxic approach is unwelcome and disruptive here. I hope you find something constructive to do with your energy but this wikiproject is likely better off without your constant disdain and disparaging comments. That you're an admin makes your actions here even more disappointing. I hope you find work on Misplaced Pages which you do enjoy that doesn't involve disrupting other users. If not you might find off-Misplaced Pages activities are more in keeping with your interests. -- Banjeboi 01:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes, a paragraph about me. That's nice. That this project's scope has crept outward to include explicitly endorsing bringing its members to comment at any deletion discussion is problematic at least. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is patently ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time, honestly. There is nothing to rescue; this ridiculous article is not going to be restored beyond its current malformed disambiguation status. Tarc (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, you made this about you, no one else needed to. Tarc, if what you say is true then there's really no need to even have the AfD because apparently you know what's best? We have these processes to gauge consensus, your opinion on that article should go there. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Where, specifically, was consensus established for this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The last RfC, which again, was a direct result of your edit-warring here resulted in a fairly strong consensus that ARS can help in all XfD. You choose to argue and otherwise disparage this project while most of the editors here continue to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia. I think your actions speak for themselves. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to the part where consensus was established that any mainspace page can be tagged, period? I'm not seeing where the RFC addressed that at all, and points where the RFC contradicted that.

Also, please refrain from tagging this as resolved, especially when the conversation is direct questioning of your reason for tagging it resolved. It clearly isn't resolved, and you are clearly involved in the discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Modified the resolved tag to meet your vexatious edit-warring here. The RfC addressed that XfD seemed to be approved by concensus. I encourage you to disengage from simply arguing because you didn't get your way or the larger community disagrees with you. You've made your point and generally it's moot. Are you really going to bicker and argue here on every type of RfC until you're shown the door? -- Banjeboi 02:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

{{resolved}} still isn't used to get the last word. XfD wasn't "approved by concensus"; instead, all pages which need to be fixed up were considered appropriate. You've repeatedly supported {{rescue}} tagging regardless of whether the page in question needed repair, in order to "bring more eyes to the debate". I was curious what discussion established consensus that this was an appropriate use of this project's tools. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Your persistence in restating the same "concern" is duly noted. To, again, answer your assertion the last RfC that your edit-warring prompted indeed supported that non-article XfDs were fine. The little zinger here is that in one of the outsiders views - recall I invited them to stop the editing warring on the close of the RfC itself - was that the tag likely shouldn't be used on any item that couldn't be improved. So you may ask yourself, who is the person who decides an item couldn't be improved? Indeed an XfD is because an editor thinks that at item can't be improved and of all those items at XfD the {{rescue}} tag is added to a small percentage of items that someone else thinks can be improved. So the answer here is that the XfD discussion itself is what is used to decide if an item can be improved or not. In this case the quick question was could the tag be used ona disambiguation article - the answer is, of course. In general if ARS folks can do something they will, if they can't they won't. I marked this as resolved because this is an item at AfD and there is little doubt it's within the acceptable use. I hope your concerns have been addressed at least to answer why the actions taken have occurred even if you sharply disagree with them. -- Banjeboi 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It established that XfDs were fine when the concerns raised could be solved with editing. Originally, this project's scope was articles up for deletion which can be improved with editing. The RFC was whether that scope should be expanded, and the consensus was to expand it to pages up for deletion which can be improved with editing. I want to know where consensus was established to expand the scope to pages up for deletion, period. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you would perhaps re-read what I wrote just above there was rough consensus reached in that RfC which wasn't about expanding as much as clarifying scope. You see it different and we may have to agree to disagree here. Likewise, again, I'm not comfortable being the sole person who decides if something can be improved or not, and I'm equally uncomfortable with any one other person making that decision. Luckily Misplaced Pages operates by WP:Consensus at XfD discussions where the community can discuss what can or cannot be improved. Indeed if someone tags something for AfD or for rescue and they were mistaken in their assessment, the community will still likely make the right decision on what to do with the item. If not there are other consensus processes that can be employed. We work with other editors here and try to do so collegially and civilly. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, call it whatever you'd like, expanding or clarifying or whatever. I'm more concerned with the end result. I'm suggesting that {{rescue}} be applied whenever someone in good faith believes that an article can be improved to address the arguments made for deletion in a deletion discussion, and that it be removed when it's obvious that the deletion arguments have nothing to do with the state of the page but instead the page's concept. All that's required is some sort of reasonable suggestion that the article problems can be addressed with editing. For some examples: List of the verified oldest women was not a {{rescue}} candidate by this standard, since it was more or less perfect for its stated task, and the deletion discussion was entirely based around whether this task was necessary or not. Getting more eyes on its deletion discussion may or may not have been an admirable goal, but it wasn't the goal of this Wikiproject. (I use it as an example not to rehash the debate, but simply to illustrate that discussions can center around things other than notability or article quality.) If "Well, we can get more eyes on the discussion" becomes the all-purpose justification for the {{rescue}} tag, then the scope has increased, and that shouldn't happen without some sort of discussion.

If we "agree to disagree" on this point, then the point is not resolved, and will need to be resolved at some later point. Do take care not to describe it as some sort of resolved policy. In any event, we both agree that issues that can be resolved with editing are perfect for {{rescue}}; for example, if a dab page is up for deletion because someone feels it's unexpandable or malformed, it's a perfect candidate. The disagreement is how far beyond that point it extends, and there is indeed a disagreement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was marking resolved not your issues but that the question asked was answered. Although your points are theoreticly interesting it still puts one person in the position of deciding if something is able to be fixed in some way. We don't do that, we have XfD for such purposes. Personally this feels like round umpteenth of you wanting to play sheriff here - if condition X, Y and Z aren't met then I will ____ - and that's been rather disasterous in practice. I don't care who comes along to this project if thier interest is to help and that is coupled with a spirit of cooperation. We have many tagged items that ARS members simply don't seem that interested in investing energy. This woud indeed suggest that even if someone tags an item individual editors choose what they work on. Rescue tag has never is still doesn't equal kkep vote or must be saved but merelly that a group of editors who specialize in AfD issues will have a look. As a default we end up helping a lot of newby editors understand Misplaced Pages and why things are deleted. This is a very common experience and anyone who wants to help ARS certainly can. -- Banjeboi 04:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

But it's not about fixing articles "in some way". That's {{cleanup}}. It means fixing articles to address the arguments for deletion. If the concerns can't be resolved with editing the article, {{rescue}} isn't appropriate. The {{rescue}} tag becoming "Come comment on this deletion discussion!" is what I'm trying to prevent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The stated argument for deletion is often flawed and itself not in keeping with policy, AfD is abused. If only items that could never be improved were sent to AfD we wouldn't have much to do here. And you seem to be suggesting it's in some wrong that someone, regardless of affilation, shouldn't comment on an article unless they are actively working to fix it. That's also not how AfD works. Ideally ARS members would help shine the light and lead the way but frankly I have little idea who is or isn't an ARS member except I see their work improving articles. So their really isn'ta basis to preventing anyone, including ARS members, from any XfD discussion and this has been gone over many times. Closers weight the arguments based in policy, empty !votes and discussion don't have much affect. If someone is just blowing air in a discussion then their wasting their energy and even Jimmy would tell you it's their right as a volunteer to define what work they do. In short the tag sometimes does exactly as we would hope, sometimes it doesn't but at the end of teh day it's about work to improve content that makes a difference. -- Banjeboi 04:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The stated argument for deletion is often flawed and itself not in keeping with policy, AfD is abused.

Correcting this perceived injustice is far beyond this project, or any project. We absolutely do not a Wikiproject exists to come to discussions of any topic and tell people that they're wrong. Self-appointed meta moderator projects have been repeatedly established to be inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. I'm suggesting a project that exists to counter arguments for deletion by any means is a project that is far off the rails. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call AfD being flawed a perceived injustice as much as a sad reality. And if it were not true we would have next to nothing to do here if it weren't true. And yes, finding ways to help AfD function better is part and parcel to what we do here. The less bad AfD noms we get the more we can focus on articles that can and should be rescued, ergo we could improve them more. I used to do complete article overhauls, i no longer have time for that as so many bad noms clog the system. I'm glad you agree that self-appointed moderators have been rejected, that seems to be a strong undercurrent of your comments here. Like bad AfD noms and faulty rescue tag use the system is still somewhat self-correcting without a sheriff. If you find a Wikiproject that "exists to counter arguments for deletion by any means" then likely you should ask for more eyes at the admin boards. It's likely it won't be tolerated in that form for long although Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Inclusion would seem to come close to that. -- Banjeboi 02:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And yes, finding ways to help AfD function better is part and parcel to what we do here.

No, no, no. A thousand times no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation page this thread was originally about has been deleted. On the subject of the scope of this wikiproject, I think it would be preferable to turn the article rescue side from a club into a process. In my humble opinion, there should be a wikiproject dedicated to improving the deletion process, but unlike WP:SCISSORS or WP:ARS it shouldn't be dominated by deletionists or inclusionists. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. We certainly do look to finding ways to help AfD work better, our talkpages are full of them and many of the same ideas have already gone through WT:AFD or elsewhere and either implemented or dicounted. Similarly we discuss ways to assist newby editors from even creating a soon-to-be-deleted page. These discussions go on all over Misplaced Pages and this Wikiproject is no different except that we have perhaps some broader perspective and working wisdon of what may or may not work. So sorry A Man In Black what happens at AfD upstream directly impacts what we do down here. That's been true since our inception and isn't likely to change. PhilKnight, I would think WP:Scissors and WP:ARS would actually be the wikiprojects to assist in identifying areas but if you want to start a new wikiproject devoted to fixing AfD we'd love to hear about it when you do. I'm otherwise opposed to efforts to again dismantle this Wikiproject however. -- Banjeboi 02:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive use of rescue template

Drawn Some added the rescue tag to about 60 articles over 2 days. It started with what I think was a good faith rescue tagging of Charlie the Unicorn, but it is indiscriminate now. I have reverted about 50 tags and left a handful, and I've warned Drawn Some. Fences and windows (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen two ridiculous uses of the rescue tag in the past two days. Nilutpalgogoivilla is a copyright violation with a title that has nothing to do with its subject matter. If someone were actually interested in writing an article about Arun Sarma, then starting off with the article under discussion is not the way to go about it. Florida Whig Party is either a keep or a redirect, there's nothing to rescue there. Is the Rescue Squadron becoming dominated by trolls? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This bolsters, IMHO, the idea of an automated bot that places a "so you tagged an item for rescue" tag. Some users, hopefully well intended have nommed batch articles (one AfD with 10-25 articles) so we would have 10-25 listings here. Our ARSBot used to cope with me bundling those together but seems not to anymore. The bot administrator has been unresponsive but I imagine we'll get that worked out soon enough. Another issue is a mass spree of AfD noms to articles that likely should have be taken to a merge process instead opr are in one subject area, like novels or the bilateral relations articles. These too result in a large batch of articles coming in. The third area is simply newby editors who may not have the perspective to know what's potential rescue-able so tag anything they like. I see Drawn Some (talk · contribs) as being more experienced but perhaps confused on the rescue concept. If one isn't willing to make a compelling "keep" - or at least "comment" - statement about the article's meeting policies for inclusion and addressing nom's concerns then I question why they feel the item is recuable. -- Banjeboi 22:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The rescue tag is vulnerable to gaming or trolling, or just simple ignorance of its use, but so is much of Misplaced Pages. I was bold and didn't wait for Drawn Some to explain, I just removed the tags.

Who then was a gentleman? nominated both the articles he's complaining about, so of course he doesn't want them rescued, but the addition of the tag on the Florida Whig Party was reverted by the same user who added it 20 minutes later. I've seen a lot of bad deletion nominations, but that doesn't mean we need to get rid of AfD.

Perhaps there should be guidelines on the removal of inappropriate rescue tags? Fences and windows (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I did in fact nominate both articles, though I'm inclined to withdraw my nomination of Florida Whig Party, but you did not address the nonsensical tagging for rescue. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, and just as many unfortunately disruptively use the AfD template as well. Best, --A Nobody 00:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that my nominations were disruptive? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, my comment is a general one and not a reference to your nominations, but rather to my own experience with other nominations in which editors want to merge so instead of starting a merge discussion start an AfD, or renominate something kept multiple times, etc. I am not saying anything about your nominations, but about AfDs I keep seeing that are frivolous. Obviously nominations for copy vios are of course legitimate. Best, --A Nobody 19:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a few myself and sent notes to folks who have added the rescue tag but made no comments in the AfD. We may want to make that a priority. That users who tag need to comment on every XfD they tag. It can be a neutral "Comment" or "Keep", "Merge" etc but needs to clarify why and how the items can be rescued. -- Banjeboi 01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we must also comment in the AfDs if we rescue template something. A few times now I have tagged something, worked on it some, but it was clear that the AfD would not result in delete, so tossing in an extra comment might be unnecessary (and in my case, sometimes we are better off when I don't comment as it is pretty clear some follow me to oppose me). Best, --A Nobody 02:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To me that example is the exception. We're trying to encourage common sense and consensus-building as part of applying the template. I don't think we could enact any rule as much as prioritize this concept. -- Banjeboi 02:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Who then was a gentleman?, I don't think your nominations were disruptive either. I do think it should be almost obligatory to try to improve an article you tag for rescue, either by active editing or sourcing, and failing that an explanation of why you think the article is salvageable should be added to the AfD page. Fences and windows (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting anywhere in asking Drawn Some for an explanation of their rescue tagging; they just say I'm being uncivil and assuming bad faith, and they're asking for me to retract and strike through a comment I made about their tagging seeming to be indiscriminate. I'm not going to engage with Drawn Some anymore on this topic. Someone else might want to ask an admin to look into their rescue tagging; Jennavecia is already aware of it from the Chris Garrett AfD discussion. Fences and windows (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hasn't Drawn Some complained about the Rescue Squadron before? Perhaps he is tagging a lot of random articles, to try to prove a point. You can't randomly run around tagging dozens of things without a reason, no matter what the tag is. Dream Focus 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Drawn Some isn't on the Member's list. And reading he sounds like he might be doing this just to be pointy. Dream Focus 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I hope this is not meant as some kind of distraction from all the bilateral relation articles. I mean I want to WP:AGF, but not the point of naivety. Best, --A Nobody 17:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1. All of the articles I tagged met the requirements for ARS and none of them fell into the exclusions.
2. There is no requirement that one comment when tagging or that one work on the articles. Cgodsimmons doesn't bother, and neither does A nobody.
3. It was nowhere near 100 articles. I don't appreciate Fences and windows making such accusations in a thread (where someone later said the tag was appropriate).
4. The tags should not have been removed. That is specifically forbidden. I am again asking that they be replaced until the AfDs end.
5. If you're going to discuss someone on a thread then you need to notify them.
6. I again accepting the offer for more eyes on this since there seems to be a presumption of wrongdoing and bad faith on my part when neither is true. Please ask for an RFC or whatever it takes to get more eyes on my actions. Drawn Some (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I frequently do "bother" to work on the articles I tag as well as those tagged by others and when necessary do comment in the AfDs as well as seen by any of the items found at User:A Nobody/awards. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly meant "Cgodsimmons doesn't always bother, and neither does A Nobody", but I'm not going to go back and sneak it in. I know that you do a lot of work on articles that are up for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Ignoring personal attack on me concerning an issue with which I have no involvement). My comments on the many articles tagged for deletion are forthcoming. I'm haven't gotten around to commenting on all of the deletion pages yet or improving the underlying articles. The best I have been able to do thusfar is focus on a few and rescue tag the rest. This has become a job for about twenty people and I actually have a real life some of the time.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What personal attack? No personal attack was intended, I didn't make one. Drawn Some (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I was reacting to your tone (I don't "bother" to make an effort, etc. etc.) I'm glad you didn't intend it that way. Water under the bridge.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the lynch mob circling me here and on my talk page, I think I'm being quite civil. I realize that you haven't been involved in the libel and threats so I apologize if I offended you. Drawn Some (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you make a list of the ones you templated in order of priority, I will gladly see what I can do for them. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I already spent a great deal of time researching and marking them only to have someone go behind me and undo all of my work, against the rules here. I labeled one today that is about open source software that is not my area of greatest competency. Drawn Some (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Grph. Having put this thread together with the wikie-beuracrat style messages I got demanding I explain my rescue tag usage in the relevant AfDs I reach the conclusion that I am one of the presumed trolls here. Which is a bit annoying, TBH. FWIW if I put a resuce tag on something it's because I think that an article could be resuced if some time is put into finding sources on it, which is largely the point of the tag. Now, I may put in something more specific in the AfD, but I don't really see that it should be a requirement or that its absessence should be an attempt at disruption. Artw (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Even proper use of the rescue tag will draw fire if you do it too often or aren't on the list of "members" of the squadron. Drawn Some (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Drawn Some, you thought a Lancashire bus station, Rawtenstall bus station, was salvageable? I said 100 as a guesstimate, it was more like 60. You had several editors independently question your use of the rescue tag, so perhaps you should take a look at what you did. I'm not going to withdraw or strike anything I've said or spend time putting back tags I believe were inappropriate. Fences and windows (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I replaced the tag myself on the Rawtenstall bus station article and included the references to clearly demonstrate its notability and added a great deal to the text. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not notable and shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. If you have any sense of shame at all you will comment at the AfD for the article in support of it since you have done so much to stand in the way of it being saved despite others' efforts. I would also ask you to remain respectful of your fellow editors. I am also asking you to change the heading on this section of this talk page as it is uncivil and not WP:AGF. These are core principles. There has been no disruption on my part but some others might ask themselves if they might have been disruptive unintentionally. Drawn Some (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would I argue for keeping a non-notable bus station? ARS isn't an inclusionist club. You're starting to sound like a martyr, but there's no pitchfork- and torch-wielding mob, just editors asking questions of you. Go back to normal editing, but don't be so trigger-happy with the rescue template in future. You may have had the best of intentions, but the reason it is disruptive to tag too many articles is that it results in a lack of focus of the ARS on those articles that are most able to be saved, i.e. with signs of independent notability and secondary sources available. If every non-notable bus station is tagged, it distracts from genuinely worthy articles. It also fosters ill will against the ARS if editors at AfD see articles with no hope of rescue being tagged. And while you have now made some effort on Rawtenstall bus station, drive-by rescue tagging on so many articles isn't the best approach, as it leaves the effort in rescuing up to other editors, and gives the other editors no clue as to your thoughts on why or how it can be rescued. I consider this matter closed. Fences and windows (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Squad morale and helping new members

I've noticed editors are sometimes so dismayed at articles they've worked on being deleted they leave the project. Even IKIP is taking a long break, I hope its because he's got some rewarding activities that need his full attention elsewhere, but maybe even his mighty heart was finding it too stressful here. So I thought it might be useful to have a thread to see if folk have any suggestions to share. Just anything that will make our work easier or help keep up moral.

Copying articles

There are many admins who say they're happy to undelete articles, but I guess many might not want to badger them every time an article they've worked on is deleted. I've started making a copy of any article I work on to wikiinfo , without waiting to see the result of the AfD - only takes 5 seconds, and its helps me feel much less bothered if the article is unfairly deleted as I know its still visible somewhere else, and can easily be resurrected on the main wiki once further sources become available or notability guidelines are successfully relaxed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There's 134 people on this list who will userfy articles for you, just rotate through them (-: Stifle (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

… and userfying is a better option as the page history is restored, which it isn't with a cut-and-paste. pablo_hablo. 15:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording in opening paragraph?

I wouldn't say that improvement is the exact opposite of deletion. It's close, but I'd say that addition is really the opposite of deletion. Of course, improvement includes addition, but changing the wording is just something to consider. Thhhh (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Stifle (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Three things

1. I propose that an article must be at least 24 hours old before it can be flagged for deletion to give the creator time to build up the page to a semblance of their vision for it, acquire some references, sources, links, etc and notice, contemplate, ruminate, and reflect on needed/necessary, possible and appropriate changes.

I've done a bunch of little edits to articles here and there before, but a few days ago I created my first article. I created "Janko.at" at 23:51, 30 May 2009 and it was proposed for deletion at 23:53, 30 May 2009 .

That's ridiculous! Such actions and assumptions of "instant article perfection" are unreasonable, and unrealistic!

2. Encyclopedias are FULL of things that I, not only never heard of, but never even DREAMED could exist. So how can Wikipedians reject something just because to them it is relatively unknown aka not "notable". It would be unexcuseably egotistical to say that because something is not commonly known it is unimportant.

" "Its real purpose - its only true purpose - is to explore the unknown"

Gordon R. Dickson, The Final Encyclopedia " Wikinfo Main Page

3. My first created article Janko.at needs rescuing.

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just had a look at your article. Misplaced Pages's definition of "notable" is in large part allied to its mission as an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are sometimes called "tertiary sources" - that is, they get their information from secondary sources (eg newspapers, journal articles, books, etc) which in turn get their information from primary sources (eg eyewitness accounts, laboratory reports, etc - basically original research). So Misplaced Pages bans "original research" because that's not what encyclopaedias do; encyclopaedias are about synthesising the research that other people have already done.

Where "notability" comes in, then, is that a topic is called "notable" if there are sufficient (reliable) secondary sources about the topic to allow someone to write an article on that topic based only on those sources. If I wanted to write an article about Google.com, for example, there are hundreds of newspaper articles, journal articles, and books written about it, so I could get information from them to write a good article.

With your article, then, the question is whether there are newspaper articles etc that talk about the website in question. If there are, then we can rescue the article by adding references to those newspaper articles, thus proving that it's a notable topic. If there aren't any, then it's not (yet) a suitable topic for Misplaced Pages.

I hope this helps clarify things. --Zeborah (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The newspaper "DiePresse" wrote about Janko.at in an article in Jan 2004.

Also, what do you think of my proposal for a 24 hour clemency/grace period for newly created articles? Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A 24 hour grace period has been proposed before, but it interferes with keeping out obviously inapplicable contributions. It's less elegant, but creating an article in your own user space first works quite a bit better--I tend to do it myself now--and only move it into mainspace once a decent shell of an article has been written. Unfortunately, there's very little that tells newbies how to accomplish this. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Name of Article Rescue Squadron and Military Theme

I would respectfully suggest that the members of the Squadron consider changing the name and imagery because it comes across as very belligerent and may even influence other editors' attitudes towards the Squadron and its members as well as teh behavior of the members of the Squadron itself. The military theme isn't appropriate for Misplaced Pages which is supposed to be a cooperative atmosphere. Perhaps a lifeguard theme more in keeping with the life ring image would be more suitable. Just a suggestion. Drawn Some (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How about just "Article Rescuers"? Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Some of us, on the other hand, like the name as is. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also get rid of the helicopter, it's unnecessarily helicoptery. Artw (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Lots of things within the world of Misplaced Pages have semi-military connotations - "vandal-fighting", "edit warring" etc. A "squadron" is not necessarily military, and I think the established name is better than a relaunch would be.

Whereas the helicopter template is indeed very helicoptery, I feel this is balanced out to a large extent by the lifebeltness of the lifebelt image. pablo_hablo. 05:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I seem to recall that the name was chosen somewhat arbitrarily. And almost had consensus to be changed back when this started, I believe.

But anyway, as I suggested then, I think the military-seeming concerns would be avoided if "squadron" was merely changed to "squad". It would help change the sense of the name from something military to something "rescue" oriented. - jc37 05:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Squad is not that much less military than squadron. The ARS has been the ARS for HOW long without any complaints about the name? I'm not even sure the current suggestion was intended as a serious complaint. There are enough real problems to address without needing any make-believe ones. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that "squad" is any better than "squadron". How about the "Article Liberation Army"? Alansohn (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The oppressor deletionists will be crushed under the iron heel of adding-a-few-sources and tidying-up-a-bit! Artw (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think we have a winner in our "New ARS motto" contest. ;-) Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but only if we can make it "… politely tidying up a bit". Extra bonus points for civility. pablo_hablo. 18:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

For a more historically accurate analogy, perhaps the "Article Liberation Army"'s slogan should be: "Death to the fascist insect that preys upon the life of the contributors!" But rather than military, the "Squadron" name always brings to my mind visions of another notable squadron ;) Dekkappai (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose name change as the current name appears in a reliable source which is significant functional documentation. Of course, the icon and other graphics might be tweaked as there are lots of good themes: International Rescue, The A-Team, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. We need more militarism in the ARS. I like the idea of the Article Liberation Army. After all, we are the armed wing of the inclusionists in the war against the deletionists. We need titles, hierarchy, and denial of service attacks against deletionist strongholds. All ARS members should wear full combat gear and camoflage when editing Misplaced Pages. Fences and windows (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I love the smell of deletion review in the morning! pablo_hablo. 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody put on the Wagner, quick! Dekkappai (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the Article Liberation Army can be the militant wing of the Article Rescue Squadron. I can already see a symbol with a seven-headed snake, each head being a Misplaced Pages globe. Any suggestions on who would be holding the machine gun? Is Patty Hearst doing any modeling these days? Alansohn (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Many names were suggested and the current one was accepted and no one has really come up with a better one since to sway consensus to change. The underlying change concept - that if we change it our critics will desist - is flawed. I've seen nothing to convince me that those opposed to the very concpet of this group will ever be appeased. The imagery is directly pulled from the civilian aspects of paramilitary work - rescuing people stranded in natural disasters and doing humanitarian relief. I have no issues with using these in that light. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Template Triage idea

In light of the recent discussion about people being able to overwhelm ARS by placing "too many" templates, would there be a benefit if this page somehow kept track of AfD's and listed more detailed info about a pending deletion? Ideally, there should be some way to identify things that are good rescue candidates--while avoiding allegations of votestacking. What about a simple "time left" vs. "number of edits made to article since AfD opened" metric? Things that have been relatively unmodified since the beginning of the AfD should be higher priority, and as AfD's age towards closure without significant contributions, then a "color code" could be displayed that showed that no one was actually working on modifying the article flagged for rescue. Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got half an idea for annotating the rescue project, with a note in the template passing to this listing why or how the tagger feels the article might be rescued. It'd resolve a lot of the fights over what should be tagged and when, and also would give the tag more utility for a potential rescuer than a bare {{cleanup}} tag. Thing is, it'd require both template hackery and working with the bot operator. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ideas but these too are not accurate to telling us how to prioritize work here. I also agree in part with Artw and Drawn Some that using the tag does not in itself require someone to rescue work or commenting so that likely would be the first steps here. Something neutral similar to have {{POV}} really shouldn't be used without discussion of issues for other editors to know what's going on. -- Banjeboi 04:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding a parameter for why you feel the article can be rescued eliminates accusations of bad faith tagging and gives rescuers something to start with. It makes identifying good-faith misuse of the template easy. Considering these have all been contentious issues with lots of assumption of reasons for doing things lately, I think it might be worth doing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. I always note in either the article edit summary where I add the rescue tag or in my AfD input, and often in both places exactly why I think the topic may be rescuable and what I think needs to happen.

However, I haven't seen anyone comment yet on the idea of a metric (edits per time since deletion nomination) to measure the presence or lack of forward progress. How does that sound as a metric? I propose it because it's totally unaffected by votestacking one way or the other--it ignores the AfD entirely, and focuses on the rescue-nominated article's recent rate of change. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree on having a parameter giving your reasoning for the rescue tag. Time left and edits since AfD might be useful metrics to report. Of course, not all editing work occurs before the close of AfD; sometimes the existence of sources in the AfD discussion is enough to save it. Fences and windows (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of having space to explain why/how it can be rescued. I'm not sure whether metrics would be useful or not. "Time left" would be useful but number of edits fails to distinguish between someone fixing a typo and someone rewriting large chunks of the article with references. --Zeborah (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And someone gutting the article would look the same as someone expanding it. Fences and windows (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Gutting isn't always harmful, and expansion isn't always helpful. I know of no way (aside from Cluebot and its ilk) to determine the "good faith" of an edit, so all this would serve to do is highlight articles tagged for rescue without corresponding edits. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea of a metric is an interesting one but isn't accurate enough to actually help much except maybe to show something that has been neglected, and maybe rightfully so. I'm opposed to the parameter idea, one's statement shouldn't be a POV placed on the article itself but one editor's opinion at the discussion itself. No matter what parameter, rules, etc we enact editors can still game the system if they choose to disrupt. These need to dealt with on a case by case basis. I' open to finding ideas that work but these are not quite there. -- Banjeboi 02:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the parameter could be useful to other ARS members - if the tagger said "Needs more sources" or "Needs expansion" or "Needs to be rewritten in nonPOV language" then it gives other rescuers an idea of where to start. --Zeborah (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither the template nor any tag will be in any way binding. In general an editor should have an idea of why he thinks an article is rescuable before placing the rescue template. That idea should be a possible starting point for editors seeking to improve the article. Taemyr (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

With 115 articles tagged for rescue at the moment, at a short investigation it appears that people are adding rescue templates to hopeless cases. This will bog down ARS work. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternately accounts can slow down with the AfD nominations. Sincerely, --A Nobody 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this still boils down to those of us who are more experienced need to lead the way a bit and when something can obviously be fixed to spell out what that path to improvement is on the discussion - whether as a keep or simply as Comment. Ideally we would also do that work. Likelwise we all should expand out discussion notes to be helpful for those looking for sourcing, content ideas and even warnings like - "even if this is kept for now there needs to be improvements with adding non-primary sources or this article will likely be nommed again." I accept a broader definition of what it means to rescue but IMHO a true rescue is when someone is improved so much that a renom is rather laughable as the improved article is better written, and sourced. In any case teh parameter should be your comment at the discussion and remain just your opinion of the situation not the official ARS perspective or the chief rebuttal to nom. We want to encourage discussion towards improvement. -- Banjeboi 02:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rescued

I have added a "rescued" tag to show where in AFD debates the rescue effort has begun, previously we have been adding a tag that shows when ARS was notified, but I don't think that is useful since nothing has changed at that point.Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bahamas–Russia relations See here for an example that contrasts the difference in placement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think {{Rescued}} is a bit POV and should be deleted. You likely mean well but the discussion page would be fine with a comment note stating the same thing. It also put the credibility of the project in dispute as if to say ARS project now feels ___ article shoudl be kept when we don't do that as a project. In fact we often disagree in the very same discussions. I don't see a future use of the tag that would cause more problems in the short and long term, sorry. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected it to the main template, I hope this is ameniable, if not I'll look to deleting it but would prefer not to go that route. -- Banjeboi 03:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We should argue for keeping using sources and by highlighting what improvements have been made, not by using templates. Fences and windows (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Update. I was reverted so have sent it to TfD at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Template:Rescued. -- Banjeboi 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'm confused - is this the same template we're discussing below? It seems to have different text. pablo_hablo. 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  Similar but different, this one is an actual template where the below is coded message box - the template coding is pasted in rather than being its own template page. -- Banjeboi 21:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rescue box in AfD discussion

When did this template come into use? pablo_hablo. 15:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on this one at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion a few minutes ago. Fram (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

When I started putting it on AFD's where I thought it would be relevent and informative. Is there a problem with including a simple box on the article? Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks odd, dominates the page, and I can't see what value it adds to the discussion - whether it's tagged for rescue should make no difference to people's comments on the AfD. No-one should be !voting in the AfD without reading the article, which would already have an ARS template on it. pablo_hablo. 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Two things. "Should" and "Are" are different things. Admins close debates all the time without reading the page. They should be made aware of the tag, don't you think? Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, why? The presence or otherwise of a rescue tag should be irrelevant to the closer. Now, if the presence of the tag has led to improvement of the article someone should comment and mention that, but that;s pretty far from a given. 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that admins are meant to neutrally interpret consensus, why would they read the article first? Surely doing so would render them non-neutral? Fritzpoll (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

They should do so to make sure the participants in the discussion are honest. I have seen in AfDs where, for example, accounts claimed Tobago was "not even a colony of France", when in factual reality it was several times over the course of three centuries. Now if that view took hold and the article was deleted as a result, it wouldn't be right. An admin need not surrender neutrality by double-checking that the statements in the discussion are truthful or accurate. Just as in several fiction discussions, accounts have said "no references" or "no out of universe" information. Well, in some instances there may be "little" of these, but technically saying who played as the character or what have you is out of universe and if referenced perhaps mergeable. I see a tremendous deal of inaccurate statements in AfDs that really someone should not just go by what the accounts say in the AfD, but see if what they say is actually true. Best, --A Nobody 21:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Some votes are made before changes requested are made, it lets the closer know that debate after that point includes changes made to address concerns raised earlier. There may be five deletes because there are no references in the article, someone adds references and adds the tag, so people know that changes were made to address concerns raised. Votes after changes should be weighed differently. Note here where a tag is added when ARS is notified but no changes have been made to the article. The point where concerns are addressed is the best insertion point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:28 (cur; prev), 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles are edited during AfD, whether they are tagged for {{rescue}} or not. Articles are edited during AfD by "ARS members" and other editors alike. Using this particular template (instead of just a normal comment pointing out that the article has been improved) seems to indicate any improvements somehow carry more weight because they are ARS-approved. That's not a good thing. pablo_hablo. 21:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. IMHO this box appeared when ARS suddenly had about 100+ more tagged items than usual and the template seems to serve to shame the tagger into doing something. I think it should go, AfD is for discussion not templating one's decrees. Two wrongs don't make a right even if you feel someone is mass rescue tagging AfDs. -- Banjeboi 18:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I also think it should go. It is sensible to mention any actual improvement that is made to an article during the AfD process, (whether the article had been rescue-tagged or not) but mentioning the mere fact that it has been rescue-tagged serves no useful purpose that I can see. Admins certainly don't need to be aware of the tag, just the article and the debate. pablo_hablo. 19:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Eh... I like {{rescued}} better. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Could we wait for consensus before starting using new templates or procedures on this project, please? Fences and windows (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Template {{Afdrescued}}

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. ~~~~

{{Afdrescued}} is an inline template just created that I believe has quite similar issues as the two above. I have removed it from the project page until we have consensus to add it on a project level. To me this is a good example of why all three are unneeded. The whole point is to note someimprovements have been made - Comment. This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion. does that and no template is needed. By inviting editors on our project page to use this implies ARS endorses this use so as a group we should clarify if we do or do not. Being named "AFD Rescue" also implies our endorsement as does our iconic life preserver image. For those wishing to endorse using this I encourage you to consider the following:

The significant improvements do not satisfy Misplaced Pages's notability and sources policies.

AfD is a discussion so I wouldn't support going down this road. If we do think it's a good idea then I think we also need to get consensus from WP:AFD that this would be acceptable. -- Banjeboi 04:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. All contributions to an article at AfD need to be considered on their own merits. All these templates seem to imply that the efforts of ARS members have more authority and more legitimacy than those of other editors. pablo_hablo. 08:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• A one-line indication that significant improvements have been made seems quite helpful and an icon is a good eye-catching way of summarising this point. The lifebuoy icon seems quite satisfactory for this purpose and I shall try using it myself, following the good example of other editors. It seems a better way of making the point than WP:HEY, which has always seemed a quite baffling usage, contrary to WP:NEO. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - a one line indication that improvements have been made is helpful, and such have often been added to AfDs. Introducing icons gives too much weight to such a comment, and paves the way for discussions such as this:

• This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion. Arsman

• The significant improvements do not satisfy Misplaced Pages's notability and sources policies. Captain Source

• Delete with prejudice. Complete cruft. Mr. Standardz

• Keep - not doing any harm, plenty of space on the servers. catfan101010

• Nuke from outer space per Mr. Standardz. spaceboi

• Delete per nom. VoteyMcVoter

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Newsdawg

– it is just a visual distraction, adding nothing to the discussion but screen clutter. pablo_hablo. 13:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Minus the images, we already get WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:PERNOM style of non-arguments and yes, I have seen "nuke from space, lol" or "kill with FIRE!!" as "rationales" as well.  :( I find AfDs about the most embarassing aspect of Misplaced Pages, much more so than poorly written articles, because of the lack of seriousness and immaturity by participants in many AfDs added to the lack of knowledge concerning the subjects under discussion. Heck, I have even seen accounts outright admit they do not know anything about the topic under discussion! You know, actually, I have seen checkmarks and Xs in some AfDs in the past. Sincerely, --A Nobody 01:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping illustrate where this will very likely lead. These kind of comments have long occurred on AfD and look a lot like:

• Comment. Article has been rewritten. -- Banjeboi 20:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll note this is presented NPOV and all regular AfD editors will have little confusion what this means. What this means to the overall discussion is a timestamped benchmark for prior-to and post-change discussion to be veiwed by all and especially the closer. Those who amend their !votes may change them or state "the improvements made do not sway my opinion", etc. If after such a comment all the !votes are keep, or at least not delete that also has a bearing on the overall impact the discussion has had. Regardless we have to avoid implying that ARS is the authority on this and that discussion is in any moot because the issues have been resolved. Indeed if I see notes like that what need is there for me to !vote, improve or even look at the article? We want to aid the discussion not impede anyone's involvement, especially newer users unfamiliar with AfD. -- Banjeboi 20:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, the goal is to get users to take a second look. This could be users who previously commented, or new users (new to the AfD) who might feel peer pressure to just agree with the current way the !vote is going. This template removes the peer pressure by saying that you aren't necessarily disagreeing with these people you respect, since they might have looked at an entirely different article. Gigs (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I commonly place a bullet at the start of my comments to punctuate them. Numerous editors have gratuitous graphics in their sigs. As long as graphics are not bulky, like the giant trout one occasionally sees, then they are fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

no editor should have a graphic in their signature, if you spot any, please point this out to them.

Actually, reasons for not using an image in a signature include:

they are potentially distracting from the actual message

images in signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution

Icons in AfD discussions would do the same. pablo_hablo. 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I see a thin red line at the start of your signature. This graphic and the other bulky formatting markups in your signature have less utility than the suggested graphics above. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  That's not a graphic, it's a border. Cheers, Jack Merridew this user is a sock puppet 06:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Signatures are one thing, this is a different issue. ARS does not copyright the life-preserver but at AFD it's arguably emblematic of our project which does not take any official position to declare an article is now considered rescued. I think that is problematic for many reasons as previously outlined. This would also seem to be the start of a slippery slope as Pablomismo has shown above where comments are decorated. {{trout}} is one of the few, possibly only, exceptions and generally is employed only in egregious cases unlikely to change anything. I've certainly used it myself. Even if we endorse the use here I still think we need to get approval at WP:AFD which seems unlikely IMHO. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an official-looking declaration of a debatable evaluative claim. By violating the usual AFD norm of not adding images to comments, it appears to be more than just a comment. Is it a good idea to be making official-looking templates for typical AFD comments? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I just created this template as a useful way to let editors know that the article has changed in a big way, and that some of the earlier concerns may have been addressed. I kept it very low key so that it wouldn't disrupt the discussion. If anything, this comment may cause an article to be more likely to be deleted, if the discussion still leans toward delete even after the template. I think we could make it even more neutral by changing it to "significantly changed". I'm going to go do that now. Gigs (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Wouldn't it be better to just replace it with a comment to that effect? I don't see the need for the big obtrusive box, that's all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  What big intrusive box? This template is very unobtrusive:

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. ~~~~

If an article has been improved then I would recommend contacting those who have already commented at the AfD and invite them to reconsider their vote. I tend to keep track of ones I've voted on for a bit of time but not always to the end of the debate. I can't see what use a banner would be, as it is already pretty much always stated in the debate if an article has been improved. Quantpole (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• As above, it isn't a banner, it's a single line of text with a tiny icon. Gigs (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and war

I recently created a new article named Telepathy and war, which was later nominated for deletion. The article was well referenced and covered research by Darpa (a division of the Pentagon), and by Darpa funded bodies, into Synthetic Telepathy. The technology is being developed for application on the battlefield and, Darpa says, to intercept and influence communications. I attempted to engage in discussion with other users who wanted to delete the page, then opted to let the article rest for a day or two while seeking editor assistance. At the editor assistance page I was referred to the Article Rescue Squadron. I am happy to have other editors help develop the article - which covers genuinely reported research published by reputable sources. In originally creating the article I referenced it with 19 footnotes. The footnotes referenced research published in science publications, research published on the websites of two of the universities who conducted the research, and research reported by recognised news organisations. These references are available in earlier versions of the page but were removed by an editor who strangely later tried to claim the content was unreferenced. The reported research does sound unusual, but a number of reports show that it is being carried out. I believe that Misplaced Pages should cover these advances in military applications of Brain-computer interfaceing. I feel more material published by legitimate sources exists that can be referenced to grow the article, particularly over time as more information about the research could emerge. Frei Hans (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want this squad to swarm the article and discussion, you should add

{{rescue}}

to the top of the article just below the AfD message. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack, there's no guarantee that ARS members will be interested in or want to rescue any given article. We're not robots. Fences and windows (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There really is nothing to rescue. I'll remove the tag shortly. Verbal chat 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: demand WP:BEFORE

I think we should require that people listen to WP:BEFORE before listing articles for deletion. I find any attempt to start an AFD without adequate discussion on the article talk page to be an uncivil end-run about working towards consensus. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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