Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list: Difference between revisions

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 Wikipedia articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron articles

This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: No consensus, 4 December 2012, see discussion. Speedy Keep, 7 February 2012, see discussion.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

I believe we need a subject specific guideline page for list articles. Please look over my draft, and give me some feedback. User:Dream Focus/Wikipedia:Notability (lists) Dream Focus 12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we already have this? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many unresolved issues with lists - see this recent talk for instance - and in particular with WP:CSC#2. Lists of non-notable items are regularly deleted under WP:IINFO even if the topic itself is notable as a group, making it impossible to create an index to all related content that's covered somewhere at Wikipedia as sections of larger articles. Diego (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just ignore it usually, but this is a bit ridiculous. It current says List of furniture types. All furniture types that exist are already on there, and it doesn't really need anything else done with it, so how can you improve it? Are these things just chose randomly by one person? That doesn't really go well with Rescuing articles in need. Dream Focus 08:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 AFL Central & North-West England League results for the Huddersfield Rams is going to be deleted unless there are objections. What do ARS members think about it? If you object, do it in that talk page. If not, tell me here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Joon-Young this seems to be an article, but it is a complete mess. I don't know if it needs rescuing, deletion or strong advice/coaching for the editor. The Banner talk 22:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't bother reading through it, just fixed a broken ref, used reflinks twice on it, and did proper section dividers. [1] Dream Focus 00:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, it seems to be a legitimate article, perhaps even on a notable young Korean musician. Made a few copy-edits, tagged it... Much copyediting needed. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys! Now it looks like an article, although with a lot of work to do. The Banner talk 13:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jovan Bubonja any more or less worthy of keeping than any other association football (aka soccer) player?--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the rescue squad list to my watchlist and hope to participate more in the future as time allows. Wondering if there is there a way to be notified only when a new case is added. -- GreenC 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, I just now provided a reference to the article Gezim Kasapolli and removed deletion tag from the article Nalini Krishan as it had references to reliable sources.Skr15081997 (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Newspaper search engines by country. This is a start. Any feedback or modifications appreciated. -- GreenC 14:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This information is unduly complicated for the average person who is not familiar with wikipedia, removed and moved to talk. Headtransplant (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC) {{Article Rescue Squadron Code of Conduct}} :''For additional article improvement listings, check out this project's [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list/Archive 1|archives]] and listings at [[Wikipedia:Cleanup|WikiProject Cleanup]]'' This is a list and discussion of '''Wikipedia content for rescue consideration'''. When posting here, please be sure to: * First familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines for [[Wikipedia:Notability|topic notability]] and [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|identifying reliable sources]]. * Include specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to [[Wikipedia:Be bold|improve]] the content. * Sign posts with four tildes '''<nowiki>~~~~.[reply]

• Place the {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} template in Articles for deletion discussions, to notify editors about the listing here. The tag can be placed below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

The following templates can be used for articles listed here:

• *{{Find sources 3|Article name}} - Adds source search options
• *{{lagafd|Article name}} - Adds relevant links
• *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (Nth nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated N ≥ 4 times

</nowiki>

If you remove this from the page again, I will report you for vandalism. The instructions are there for a reason, and your inability to understand them is not legitimate grounds to remove them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your comments, I added {{underconstruction}} to the page. Please give me an hour to work on the page if that is okay. Thank you. Headtransplant (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not 'okay' - if you edit the page again without prior consensus, I will report the matter - you have already violated Wikipedia rules on edit-warring. Any changes should be proposed here first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since active members normally just look at this list page, I'll post the notice here to get noticed. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Propose_marking_Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_as_historical Some want to shut the project down claiming its dead, despite the fact people still come here and do great article saving work at times, like the example below. Share your opinions there please. Dream Focus 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the following text (or a variant thereof) be added to this page's guidelines: An editor who has already commented in an AFD discussion should not post the article under discussion to the rescue list, and an uninvolved editor who posts such an article here must refrain from commenting in the AFD discussion themselves except to issue a notification that the article has been posted to the rescue list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, this proposal is withdrawn. It was clearly meant in good faith and would have solved some of the canvassing problems like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp monster, so I definitely don't feel I deserved the level of abuse some of this project's members have been giving me over it, but hopefully this will be the end of at least the harassment and personal attacks. Responding to said abuse has unfortunately taken up more time than I would have liked, and I didn't get around to figuring out how to formally withdraw a premature RFC, so if someone else could do that for me it would be most appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I cannot believe that year after year the "ARS canvassing" trope is still resurfacing. This page is no canvassing: deletionists are welcome to put it on their watchlist and hawk ARS-listed AFDs as much as inclusionists. That said, the rationale behind such a bizarre requirement baffles me. Why should one list the article here and not comment on the AfD or viceversa? By which logic should this avoid !vote-stacking (at most, it would get 1 comment less)? Can't one have an articulated opinion on the AfD and ask ARS to have a look at it? The only rationale I can see is to force editors to choose between ARS notification and AFD involvement, basically crippling both. This is unnecessary and detrimental to the project. --cyclopia^speak! 00:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Attendance at AfD discussions is very weak nowadays and so it's good to encourage participation. Typically someone who posts an entry in the rescue list does so because they have looked at the article, reckon that it has potential and so want assistance in getting improvements made. This is reasonable because AfDs have a tight deadline and article improvement is hard work. Editors who have worked on a topic and become familiar with it should be free to comment in the discussion, like any other editor of the article. People who work on an article should obviously be free to !vote on its fate as discouraging improvement of the article would be disruptive because it would harm the encyclopedia. Andrew D. (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No. Just... no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is just total nonsense. There is no reason the person trying to get help improving the article wouldn't participate in the AFD. Dream Focus 04:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Yeah, but what about cases like this and this where the poster apparently has no ideas for how the articles can be improved, and basically just link to articles that happen to be at AFD? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some people will check it out and if it can be helped, it will be. No restriction on who can ask for help here. Like all of Wikipedia, everyone is volunteer bases. Dream Focus 04:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as an unnecessary rule and complication. Legacypac (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's been several years since I was very active at AFD, but at that time ARS was pretty openly an a cancass board for raving inclusions--or at least that was my perception. Maybe it's not anymore--or maybe it still is, I haven't been paying much attention lately--either way the proposal seems like a reasonable suggestion for preventing canvassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs)

  What about other Wikiprojects? Do you think they should do the same? Dream Focus 02:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as this goes against the function and purpose of this list. Furthermore, the NOM is posting multiple comments that make it obvious they have an WP:AGENDA against this project's goals; trying to eliminate its interference entirely by accusing it of WP:CANVAS and asking for its removal. Quite the opposite. It takes far more work than casting a simple, thoughtless !vote as so many deletionists do. We need the help. To do article rescue, it takes reading, research and a literate response. I can only speak for myself, but before I comment, I usually add sources; mostly sources that should have been added by ANYBODY who did a WP:BEFORE. But they didn't get added; not by the article creator (possibly a novice editor) and more importantly not by the NOM, who if they can figure out how to nominate, should be skilled enough to try Google first. Still we are at a huge disadvantage because there are so many, unsubstantiated, repetitive, serial delete !votes to counteract that get posted on *fD lists on a daily basis. It takes one or two minutes to leave a path of destruction of such thoughtless !votes across a day's *fD list; no rationale required. "Me too." It could take considerably longer, possibly hours to research to help one needy article. How much knowledge is being lost every day? At times, it is the few heroic members of this project that give any glimmer of hope to retain even a small percentage of the content that gets attacked and later removed every single day. Wikipedia is not censored, except, of course, when content is deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TrackInfo: Actually, my "agenda" is in favour of this project's (stated) goals: fixing problem articles, not !vote-stacking. The problem is that it is being used by involved editors to canvas people who agree with them, and are very obviously not interested in fixing the articles (they have been aggressively refusing to do so). That said, if you have read all my comments, I have no idea why you would bother !voting at all: I clearly said I would withdraw it unless it started garnering support. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This page has in the past been used for disruptive canvassing by editors who were involved in AFD discussions, and the same (or a weaker form of the same) appears to have happened recently. Whether or not such canvassing works (i.e., results in a clear consensus to "keep") would appear to be irrelevant, as AFDs can be closed as "no consensus" when the result is a 3-2 split in favour of deletion (even by non-admins without the authority to close as "delete"). Since the purpose of this project is for article improvement and not for !vote-stacking, this amendment should be uncontroversial, but since it's a hard and fast "rule" I'm proposing I figured doing so through an RFC would be better than doing so unilaterally. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The proposer explained in this discussion that he's nursing a grudge about a 5 year old AFD. They should please see WP:STICK and WP:GETOVERIT. Andrew D. (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I seem to recall the opposite: I explained that I had been unaware of what had happened in the AFD five years ago until this week, and that I was confident that if I brought the page to AFD again now, without the worry about JoshuSasori socks hounding me off the project immediately the result would be different, so I was not holding a grudge. It should also be noted that, when asked to explain why you continued to expressed credulity towards the fringe claims espoused in that article (which is not something that was resolved five years ago and I am holding a grudge over -- your first involvement was this week), you (repeatedly) dodged the question. This seems like deliberate gaming of the system in order to prevent articles from being deleted/merged based solely on personal principle rather than correct adherence to WP:NOT. It should also be noted that the immediate impetus for my proposal coming now (rather than, say, six months from now) was not the discussion on VPMISC, but your own recent violation of the guidelines that are already on this page: you auto-opposed several AFDs (being the first to do so) and posted them here without [i]nclud[ing] a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, [or] any ideas to improve the content instead posting joke-y meta remarks, meaning that your posting them here served no purpose to the project beyond notifying watchers of this page that those articles were at AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I am no longer seeing this proposal going anywhere, but I don't want to withdraw it for at least another few hours since I publicized the RFC in several prominent fora and I don't want to give the impression of deliberately creating bogus proposals, annoying a bunch of people with them, and then withdrawing them before the majority of them get a chance to even tell me how I am wrong. If no one supports the proposal before tonight I'll probably strike it (and try to figure out how to prematurely close my own RFC).

I don't actually agree with the reasoning why my proposal wouldn't work (especially the ones that essentially amount to ad hominems against me), but I wouldn't be a good Wikipedian if I didn't know how to agree to disagree and be civil about it. At least one of the early "oppose" !votes (ironically the one that makes the least sense to me) is from a great contributor for whom I have the utmost respect, so I don't see this as any kind of "battle" between "deletionists" (or "haters") and "inclusionists", merely as a procedural matter over which I have a disagreement with some other contributors.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @SarekOfVulcan: I am a bit surprised to see you opposing this proposal, and have half a mind to quote Captain Picard: "Sarek of Vulcan would never be afraid ..." :P Jokes aside, could you elaborate on what the specific problem with my proposal is? As demonstrated immediately above, the last several entries to be added to the rescue list serve no purpose but to tell watchers of the list that there are AFDs open, and were made by someone who had already strongly expressed a desire not to see the articles deleted/merged/userfied/etc.: yes, maybe strictly enforcing the guidelines that are already here (in this case, that you need to provide a coherent reason for not keeping and improving the pages) would make my proposed addition redundant, but still... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Cyclopia: But is hav[ing] an articulated opinion on the AfD and ask[ing] ARS to have a look at [the problems with the article] what has been happening the past 24 hours? It looks more like it's an editor who already clearly doesn't want the pages to be delete posting incoherent "joke-y" links to articles that are at AFD, with no purpose beyond getting potentially sympathetic editors to weigh in. The Dragonite article, for example, should be re-redirected automatically per BRD: the redirect was stable for four years, in accordance with a long-standing consensus regarding standalone entries on random pokemans: Andrew posted a link to a completely irrelevant humour essay about wikidragons, with no explanation of how the article could be improved to address the AFD concerns. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repinging User:Cyclopia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, at the time I posted most of the above, a few different AFDs had been mixed up in my mind. The Dragonite AFD would not actually be affected by my proposal, as Andrew had not (and still has not) edited the AFD page. Everything I wrote is still accurate and relevant, though, as I didn't actually say Andrew had commented on the Dragonite AFD, and he had !voted in the swamp monster AFD, and the content of his notification of that one is just as irrelevant (no ideas for improvement of the article, just a link to an article currently at AFD, and a joke-y comment), and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtues (number and structure) which he stealth-linked in an entry on a separate page. I'm posting this clarification here so no one accuses me of deliberately distorting things. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]