Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Speedy keep (again). Since reopening, the nominator has withdrawn his nomination, and two further keep votes have been added. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list
Discussion reopened. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)



Sorry to put everyone through this again so soon after the deletion of the Rescue template, but this list has all the same problems. Actually, it's worse: I was ambivalent about the template, which could have been interpeted as 'please help find sources for this article', but this list of (allegedly) notable articles up for deletion seems like a much more blatant example of canvassing. I wonder, would it be acceptable if someone created a WikiProject listing non-notable articles that should be deleted? If not, this shouldn't be acceptable either. Robofish (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Nominator gives no policy-based reason for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is perfectly fine under policy. As for the WikiProject listing non-notable articles, we already have such a project, it is called Articles for Deletion. Though if you really want a separate project, you are welcome to create it. The purpose of the ARS is to improve articles at AfD that may quite possibly meet Wikipedia's guidelines. There is no policy against improving articles at AfD. In fact, it is encouraged. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment(ec): Robofish, I know your nomination is in good faith, but I wish you could have discussed this before putting it up for deletion, if you did I was not aware of it.  I know a number of "deletionists" are fully aware of this list and have been complimentary about how it is being used - both transparently and with discussions of whether a "nominated" entry is actually worth saving.  Indeed, I saw a deletionist opine keep on a borderline article just today after examining its nomination, and I've told non-ARS editors that certain articles could not be saved after they listed them with us.  That's the sort of constructive work we all need to be doing.  As for what's acceptable or not, AfD itself is a listing of "non-notable articles that (someone thinks) should be deleted", I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that AfD itself should be deleted.  If you are aware of any perceived abuses of the page, please let's examine them.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose / Keep I see no policy-based argument for deletion listed. As for my own thoughts: unlike the ARS Rescue Tag, which could be used for drive-by flagging purposes with minimal thought to actually improving the article, the List -- at least, per its current use, which is readily viewable above -- more or less requires the "lister" to incorporate a rationale for including the article in the list. Responses are in kind. The process is positive, and doesn't look anything like canvassing. For further context, I just joined the ARS at NorthAmerica1000's invitation but, in the past, I'm pretty certain several of the more outspoken ARS members might have considered me a borderline "deletionist" (particularly when I was a more active editor). I think I have something on the order of an 80% Delete vote rate at AfDs. I also voted to delete the Rescue tag Template. But this list? This is harmless, has palpable potentially beneficial effects, and to say that this is actually worse than the Rescue tag seems well off the mark to me. I'd argue the exact opposite. Additionally, this nomination is, as far as I'm concerned, baseless without strong evidence of current and blatant canvassing efforts going on with this list. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is actually more in line with what wikiprojects with a more specific remit do. pablo 21:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is nothing wrong with a project-space list.  If ARS members use it to discuss articles at AFD and add sources/content to said articles, that is a good thing.  If it is used to simply pile on keep votes, then we have a behavioural issue with canvassing/POINT disruption that would have to be dealt with. Resolute 21:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This list is quite typical thing for wikiproject - see WikiProject Astronomy/Article alerts. "would it be acceptable if someone created a WikiProject listing non-notable articles that should be deleted" - yes, see Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability Bulwersator (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I see attempts to improve articles, no reason for deletion (but it may be a good idea to ban from afd editors with mentality "we must keep/delete EVERYTHING!") Bulwersator (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, you've got to be kidding.... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The whole point of this page is to enact more discussion among group members and to make improvements to articles directly. This is something we've been discussing for days. Unless you're planning on getting rid of all deletesort categories for every Wikiproject, this nomination is just useless and pointy. Silver  seren C 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep- Heaven forbid there's a place on-wiki to allow people to coordinate their efforts to make sure articles on viable subjects are improved to the point that they don't warrant deletion. Any problems with canvassing can be dealt with by a smart admin on the afd in question. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - though I'd propose to amend the section starting. "The following is a list of content for rescue consideration. Please be sure to..." by inserting as the second item "Make a reasonable effort to improve the article yourself before posting here", or words to that effect. This will make suggestions of drive-by canvassing harder to justify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep WikiProjects are allowed to organize efforts regarding articles that are nominated for deletion and no policy-based reason has been mentioned to make an exemption here. Regards  So Why  22:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like point of the page is to encourage discussion to improve pages that are indeed notable. Canuck My page89 (talk), 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's no reason to delete a list that says "these articles look like they're savable - get to work". Also it looks like there's WP:SNOW in the forecast. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note. I am reopening this discussion per 's request on my talk page. Another admin may close it again, I have no objections. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 20:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and ban The Devil's Advocate from interfering with the Article Rescue Squadron. CallawayRox (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - No valid reason given for deletion. The nominator claims canvassing as the deletion reason, but since the page in question does not violate WP:CANVASS, that reason doesn't hold. Rlendog (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.