Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)

 __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   no consensus. It's clear that further discussion will serve no purpose other than create additional friction between both "camps", and that there isn't going to be consensus regarding the list itself. Given the swiftly increasing level of rethoric, this discussion is best closed before it devolves into an all-out "inclusionist vs. deletionist" battle royale. If there is something productive to be done around the controversy surrounding the ARS, it has to be done with wider community participation than an MfD of a process page can muster. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list
Previous MfDs for this content: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list

This project page is being used for canvassing. Including stealth canvassing without any notification (e.g Articles for deletion/List of Indian castes which was listed as Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list despite being asked to provide the notices .). To my comment "You didn't vote in the AfD, and you did improve the article, but neither warden nor dream edited the article and just voted. This seems consistent with ARS being used as a canvassing tool" was given the response "Wolfie, Dream did in fact make a minor formatting improvement, but you’re basically correct.". Also "Possibly not all active members share your perspective on what we should be doing. Though sadly youre probably right, in the sense that if we want to avoid attack, we should minimise the number of times we vote without making substantial improvements." 15:14 7th Oct Then Bangladeshi political families was listed. 15:18 7 Oct. No improvements have been made to the article as of this verison of the AfD 19:03, 10 October 2012 no edits to the article were made after it was listed. ARS member Dream Focus just turned up to vote keep and didn't improve the article. His rationale was a WP:GOOGLEHITS/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument:.

Editors on this list turn up at AfDs and vote keep, whilst sometimes severely misunderstanding the topic: evidently confusing Lagrange with Bruno Jobard the actual creator of Lagrangian-Eulerian advection. Same article was beefed up with peripherally connected and irrelevant material : "conceptual breakdown" is a summary of three other terms, providing no specific insight into Lagrangian-Eulerian advection or their relationship to it, the image is of a different method with clear OR as a caption: "visulation of massive bodies of water vapour undergoing advection in the earth's troposphere. This visulation was created using a Lagrangian approach - using a hybrid Lagrangian–Eulerian technique would have been one way to achieve greater detail."

The list regulars use contradictory arguments in different places: AFD is a vote count:, AfD isn't a vote count:. Regulars have an unhealthy obsession characterizing those who vote delete as evil and menacing, including filling their userspaces with blogs about it: i.e User:Dream_Focus.

Some ARS members have tried to argue that the list is available for everyone, but the reality is that the "Rescue list" is aimed towards inclusionists (as is self evident from the name) for AfD keep votes. It is used specifically to let other inclusionists know about AfDs to pile on and as such it is disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP Nearly all wikiprojects list articles in their purview that are up for deletion. Please refer to WikiProject Deletion sorting. Spoildead (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Note: this user has been blocked as a checkuser confirmed sock . --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The claim that the list is used for canvassing is ridiculous and contrary to the very definition of canvassing, that requires targeted communication aimed to editors given their known stated point of view or opinion. The wording of the rescue tag is neutral, the list is not targeted to any individual, and it is open to anyone who wants to keep an eye on it; if editors in the deletionist spectrum don't want to follow the discussion posted in it, it's their choice to make, and hardly fault of the list itself. Diego (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's well known that your list is followed by extreme inclusionists (i.e 98% keep votes etc). If the list is being used for notification of AfDs and not improving of articles, and if editors in the deletionist spectrum don't follow what's posted here, as you point out, then it's clear that posting here gets you inclusionists at AfDs voting keep. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Should the video game deletion project be deleted because it is followed by "extreme deletionists", or the simpson project be deleted because it is followed by "extreme inclusionists"? Which is the case with both projects.
 * Diego brings up some excellent points: "canvassing requires targeted communication aimed to editors given their known stated point of view or opinion". A quick glimpse at the ARS project shows that many people who do not support inclusion are extremely active in the ARS. This list up for deletion today is open to anyone to add a neutral article too, and too contribute too.
 * Instead of deleting a community you don't care for IRWolfie, why not become part of the community instead? Isn't that what wikipedia and the thousands of other wikiprojects all about?
 * If you put the video game deletion project page up for deletion you would be mocked and chastized for disruption, yet doing the same here is okay? Spoildead (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it very interesting that you've made 100 edits, had an account for less than a month, never edited anything related to the simpsons or games, but you are aware of their leanings and appear to demonstrate some knowledge of the community. If any project has a page which is used for disruptive purposes there is a strong likelihood that that page will be put up for MfD too. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The video game wikiproject list is used in the exact same manner as this one - I expect to see your nomination of it shortly. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

*Keep -- Deletion is not in the best interests of Wikipedia.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 18:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You have addressed none of the specific concerns I have raised. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to deny that there are some legitimate concerns here and that ARS can used in harmful ways at times, but I simply don't believe that flat out deleting the list is the solution.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 18:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * looks like yet another speedy keep Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list Spoildead (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nom. List is being used for canvassing and gaming the system, and the project is doing damage to WP. My AGF tank ran out long, long ago. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * so do the thousand of other wikiprojects that have deletion sorting lists canvas and game the system also? What makes them any different except that ARS focuses on all of wikipedia and these projects focus on a specific part of wikipedia? Spoildead (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that comparison. Deletion sorting is not an attempt to keep articles. Your project, on the other hand, marks situations as resolved if the article is kept. That obviously leads me to believe that you are being inclusionists.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 19:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion sorting is an attempt to sort articles that are up for deletion. This page does exactly the same. So it is perfectly fine to have List of starships in Stargate listed on the Stargate Deletion sorting page, but it is not okay to list the exact same article on Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list?
 * The ARS is an attempt to fix articles, but bad articles that have no encyclopedic value should be deleted. That is the same intention of all wikiprojects.
 * If you want to delete this page for purely philosphical reasons (inclusionists), state that, but it is disingenious to claim that this page is any different than any other wikiproject except for its larger scope. Spoildead (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * it is incredibly telling that the page's coding calls "resolved" ="keep" (in friendly green) while "deleted" = "delete" (in nasty red) and not a neutral "resolved: keep" / "resolved: delete".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If red is a nasty colour, why do you use it in your signature and username? Warden (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * duh, cause I am nasty. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For reference (for others), here are the two closure tags: When they get deleted: Gtk-stop.svg, when they are kept: [[Image:Pictogram resolved.svg|22px|keep notice]]. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The debate about the styling and terminology of the project should be held at the project's talk page, not at deletion discussions. If your grudges are against the expressions and workings of the ARS, then why aren't you participating as active members of the project, so that it better addresses your concerns? If those editors that dislike the current results of the rescue list are not willing to work hard, following the rescue list and participate in the listed discussions, by what right do they complain that it doesn't work to their liking? Diego (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is relevant to this discussion in that it demonstrates that the project does have an inclusionist leaning.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 23:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen other Wikiprojects have green checks and red X to show if articles they follow were kept or deleted. Its the common sense thing to do.  It doesn't really prove anything.  When an article is deleted it becomes a red link, and if its still there its a blue link.  Does this show any inclusionist tendency?  The articles that are kept have a nicer looking blue link, while those deleted are an unpleasant red one.   D r e a m Focus  23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that intended as an insult? I'm more of an eventualist myself, but last time I checked being inclusionist was not against policy. Those who complaint of the percentage of inclusionism in the ARS should join the project themselves to tip the balance; that would be much more productive and less POINTy than flawed deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not intended as an insult. It is the impression that I, someone who did not previously have much contact with ARS, have gotten of the group. I wouldn't be surprised if other people reach the same conclusion.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 23:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete After looking at the rescue list myself, I do believe it is being used to game the system.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 18:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that some editors come into a discussion, initially !vote one way, then change the !vote. It makes them appear as if they have truly contemplated and thought through the discussion, when their intention was to switch votes all along. interesting.Spoildead (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC) sorry thanks fluff. :) Spoildead (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Spoildead, I see that you're a relatively new editor, so I suspect some of our community norms are new to you. It might be useful for you to take a look at WP:AGF and WP:WIAPA before you carry on in this discussio. Editors on Wikipedia are expected to assume good faith of others and avoid attacking others. That would include an expectation that until evidence is provided otherwise, you not imply that others in this discussion have intentions other than honest discussion - and yes, what you said was very clearly intended to imply that, or you wouldn't have mentioned it in reply to AutomaticStrikeout, here. If you (or others) cannot or will not provide evidence for such a thing in the appropriate venue (which would usually be an admin noticeboard, not an MfD), it's considered a personal attack to impugn the motives of someone else. This is not to say that you can't argue, even strenuously, for your position here, but you cannot do it by attacking others. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Delete: ARS and its rescue list canvass AfDs, repeatedly vote "Keep" for the slimmest of reasons and create loads of unnecessary drama. From what I've seen in my following of ARS for awhile now, the preponderance of AfDs that have the rescue tag usually get an extra two or three "Keep" votes from ARS members.  A perusal through the ARS' archives will note that articles tagged with the rescue tag are very disproportionally kept in comparison to the average AfD outcome; and I echo concerns that the manner in which they are tagged as resolved couldn't be more biased if you got a :-) for kept and a :-( for delete.  For the drama creation, look no further than the "Cheese jihadist" debacle.  ARS members have a habit of being excruciatingly hostile to mergists, deletionists, or anybody who isn't rabid inclusionists.  And to equate them with other WikiProjects is unfair to other WikiProjects.  Other WikiProjects do a host of other things besides sort deletions (assess for importance and quality is one that quickly comes to mind).  This project just shows up at AfDs to vote, and once in a while dumps the first page of Google hits in both the article and the AfD, claiming them to be reliable sources  p  b  p  19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thus far the only editors who have thrown out labels (inclusionist, mergists, deletionists, rabid inclusionists, stealth canvassing) are those who have voted to delete this project. Is the project's existence the source of disruption or the editors who don't want to work together to make the project better, and instead insist the project be deleted? Spoildead (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I addressed at the other deletion discussion how that argument of yours is committing a fallacy. Yet you didn't answer there, and now are here stating the same faulty argument. Is it because you don't look over answers to your comments, or because you don't care committing logical fallacies in your arguments? Diego (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The MfD is supposed to be used for maintenance only. This proposed deletion is for changing a policy, not maintaining the structure of Wikipedia. Beyond that, I agree with Spoildead (talk), that nearly all wikiprojects list articles in their purview  that are up for deletion. Please refer to WikiProject Deletion sorting.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but "nearly all" Wikiprojects do other things as well, and "nearly all" Wikiprojects aren't at ANI over and over again for the numerous bad practices I outlined above. I've never bought into this "WikiProjects can do whatever they want" argument", especially when it's some place like ARS that doesn't have the full compliment of Wikiproject qualities and is at ANI so often.  Frankly, I'm not 100% sure that ARS should even be designated a Wikiproject  p  b  p  19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by The MfD is supposed to be used for maintenance only. This proposed deletion is for changing a policy, not maintaining the structure of Wikipedia. There is no policy requiring the existence of the rescue list. This isn't a project with a set scope like other projects and the list isn't in deletion sorting; rather the act of putting an article for deletion or prodding it makes it become "in scope". The list is being used disruptively, and that's something which hasn't been addressed despite it being pointed out numerous times over the last few months (attempts to try and deal with the problems have resulted in being rebuffed). Saying that it's not an intrinsic property of the list (as others have tried to argue) doesn't mean that it's not being used disruptively. If something is being used disruptively, where the bad outweighs the good, it's a good time to get rid of it. I did even try and list something here before earlier on, (in a situation where I voted merge, but hoped it could be improved through good research) but was sorely disappointed when the ARS members just turned up to vote with minimal improvement (and an ARS member turned up and did a NAC keep to boot). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Editors who participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list have been notified per Canvassing: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:...The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it". Thank you. Spoildead (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you're in the business of notifying people, go ahead and notify all the people who participated in last week's TfD on Template:Rescue list as well... p  b  p  20:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * thank you wolfie for the great suggestion, you or anyone else is welcome too. :) Spoildead (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The set of editors who have participated at Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list is almost certainly biased in favor of retention. It should be obvious that contact only that group constitutes impermissible canvasing. Your inclusion in your messages of a selected part of the canvasing rules shows you knew in advanced that your canvasing would be controversial; further your response above, inviting someone else to contact more people to essentially counteract your canvasing, shows you knew what you were doing was biased canvasing.  Monty  845  20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a sample notification: in which I post WP:Canvassing policy:
 * An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:
 * ...On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics...The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. (emphasis my own).
 * In which I quote specific WP:Canvassing policy.
 * On the other hand, your opinion is empty of any policy backing up your assertions. Therefore I would appreciate you striking these comments as they have no basis in WP:Canvassing rules.
 * Also please don't template editors for strictly following wikipedia rules. The great thing about wikipedia, is if someone doesn't like the way the rules are written, they can get consensus to change them.
 * thank you.Spoildead (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You notified everyone at a previous discussion where there was an overwhelming majority in favor of keeping. That is not an unbiased notification, and it was done with a clear intent to canvas. The key language is However, canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. IF the previous debate had many opinions on both sides, then a neutral notification would be fine, but that is not the case here. Monty  845  20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Purplebackpack89 wrote on my talk page:
 * I agree with Monty here. You've got to either expand the people you're notifying, or it IS canvassing.  I've given you lists of people to notify.  Please notify them.   p  b  p  20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First, lets please keep this discussion here.
 * Second, I have two opinions about canvassing which are not backed up with any policy.
 * No where are editors on WP:Canvassing told to notify editors on slightly similar templates that are up for deletion, as Purplebackpack89 asks me to do on Template:Rescue list. I notified editors on the first deletion discussion, as per the rules demand.Spoildead (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to game the system, your saying that the spirit of WP:CANVASS does not matter because you followed some language there, which at best is discussion actions that might be appropriate. You seem pretty good at this for someone who started editing a month ago and had only 15 edits prior to today... Have you ever edited under another username? Monty  845  20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Monty: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following: ...if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. (emphasis my own). This is a specific rule, specific to exactly what I did, as opposed to your general quote which you are interpreting loosely to apply to what I did, with a lot of personal opinion. I followed that rule and now you are attacking me for following that rule.  No rule exists that you cannot contact the snowball editors in a previous  snowball keep deletion discussion. A rule does exist that you can contact editors in a previous   deletion discussion. Spoildead (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To indulge in some similar WP:Wikilawyering, I could point out that was not an article deletion discussion, and so your exact rule doesn't apply. Its actually besides the point though, the spirit of WP:CANVASS is that you should not try to bring in editors to a discussion who you have particular reason in advance to believe will agree with you. If it had been 50/50 at the previous discussion, go for it. 70/30 a bit sketchy, but ok. More then 10:1 in your favor is canvassing, any way you cut it. Monty  845  21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering the controversial nature of the MfD, a neutral message to a central location like the village pump or AN might be desirable. To ensure a representative consensus is reached. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: In short:  this nomination is being made as part of a grudge match, and should be summarily closed as disruptive.  In more detail:  This page was previously nominated for deletion in February 2012, and was kept, and endorsed at DRV.  The new nomination does not even address that history.  More importantly, and directly on point, at Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron, which ran for 3 months (March - June 2012), it was concluded after massive discussion that "there is no consensus that The Article Rescue Squadron frequently serves as a vehicle for canvassing keep votes at AfD."  I cannot see how IRWolfie- thinks his nominating statement here with some random links can overcome that exhaustive discussion.  This new MfD is a hastily-brought direct follow-on from mudslinging this week that arose at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents (where you'll see PBP, who votes "Very strong delete" above, is concluded to have been disruptive by an admin -- "there is broad consensus that someone should really tone it down. Sorry PBP, but that's you.") and Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_28.  Well, instead of "toning things down," they've ratcheted this up.  IRWolfie- actually decided a few months ago he was going to come up with a new RFC on the ARS after the result of the one in June.  (see User_talk:IRWolfie-/Archive_5 - worth reading).  His draft evidence was extremely poor, and he never went forward with the RFC.  See User talk:IRWolfie-/ARS RFC Prep archive and User:IRWolfie-/ARS RFC Prep (deleted at user request), and User_talk:AndyTheGrump.  I had already starting prepping a point by point response to that RfC as he prepped it, because it was absolutely void of merit.  See User:Milowent/Uncivil (where Articles for deletion/Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection is addressed, I see Wolfie still used it above!).  Apparently Wolfie has now decided to simply ditch the RFC and do a quick and dirty MFD, flustered by the recent discussions I just linked.  Now, anyone interested in the work of ARS is welcome to peruse the archives of the rescue list, the nominations, discussions, and resolutions are completely transparent.  Its actually a much better historical record than was created when Template:Rescue existed.  You'll see we many times DO NOT rescue articles that's don't merit rescuing, for example.  Trying to run around the lengthy recent RFC is wrong, and should be rejected.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You decided to call your rebuttal page "Uncivil"? Your vote is nothing other than mudslinging at me and others and contains no actual rebuttal of the arguments. You mentioned me at ANI, but didn't notify me, I would not even have noticed the ANI except I comment there regularly. Where have you addressed what occurred at Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection, including the addition of clear OR by ARS members, and the comments by ARS members who didn't have a clue what the topic was about? You have not addressed the "transparent" notifications, which often don't include notifications to the AfD. (and if you had of looked you would have seen that I had zero (or next to zero as far as I am aware) interaction with ARS members for the three weeks before you mentioned me at ANI without notification, a strange definition of "ratcheting things up") IRWolfie- (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)I called the rebuttal draft "uncivil" because I am tired of your uncivil conduct. I've left things alone; I didn't want to stir all this up.  You wouldn't have brought this MfD if you respected the ANI close.  Note, I address Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection in the draft rebuttal- WHERE EVEN YOU VOTED TO KEEP.  What are you railing against?  There's no way the ARS changed the outcome of that discussion in some improper way.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please show a diff of me being uncivil or retract your allegation. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)Unless I'm missing something, when a discussion is closed as "no consensus", it's perfectly acceptable to start a discussion on the same, or a similar topic, at any time, and it's certainly acceptable to revisit a topic six months after the most recent discussion. Otherwise, it appears that the rest of your thread appears to be an assault on me, Wolfie, and the RfC thread he/we tinkered around with but ultimately never released, rather than a point-by-point assertion of his or my comments.  You urge us to look through the ARS archives...✅.  What I've found is upwards of 70% of articles tagged for rescue are kept (with the happy green check vs. the sad red X if they're deleted, that's POV-y), whereas upwards of 70% of articles not tagged for rescue are deleted.  That seems more than anomalous  p  b  p  21:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * last thing: Its anomalous because its not RANDOM -- we work on things we think merit rescue.  I am tired of your assault on ARS.  TIRED BEYOND BELIEF.  But it doesn't matter, I'll still work to save your shitty stub you created at Chili burger because I believe in knowledge.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An interesting thing to look at would be how many include notification of the AfD with the rescue list template, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per Milo's excellent analysis. IMHO qualifies for WP:SK 2d "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course." CallawayRox (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The ARS is little more than an 'inclusionists' noticeboard, and after multiple attempts to persuade them to do what the project is claimed to be for, some squad members still engage in little more than token effort - often without the slightest consideration of whether even an 'improved' article remotely complies with policy. Frankly, if I was closing an AFD, I'd be tempted to discount any 'keep' !vote from several of the AFD regulars, on the basis that they don't understand policy, or if they do, they think they can ignore it. Their activities in this regard are clearly a net liability to Wikipedia, and the list is the means by which they cause the most problems. Wikipedia has arrived by consensus at a series of policies regarding what is and what isn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, and if ARS members don't like the policies, they should be proposing changes to them, not engaging in token efforts (if that) followed by !vote stacking to retain material against such policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to see the regular gang is all arriving, User_talk:AndyTheGrump.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And that is a reasoned response to my comments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize that Andy voted keep in the last MfD and that it was Spoildead who notified him this time? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep: For reasons stated above, and that this along with the template deletion discussion appears to be a coordinated effort to nullify or even dissolve the ARS WikiProject in general, despite it clearly not meeting the criteria for deletion. And people accuse ARS of creating drama? Seriously, you guys ... Faustus37 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep An active project. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: RFC? maybe this MfD should be closed and an RFC would be a more appropriate venue for this ongoing argument, which spans several mainspace and wikipedia policy pages?: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents I see User:Purplebackpack89 throwing out a lot of labels and this bitter battleground even spilling into innocent articles such as the lowly chili burger. Thoughts? Spoildead (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep You can see recently someone asked for help with an article, Agha Syed Ali Sharfuddin Baltistani, and not one member of the project voted keep on it, I voting delete myself. There has never been a situation where anyone mindlessly goes to every article someone nominates and just spouts out "keep" for it.  The ARS brings in deletes as well as keeps.  Someone asked for help for an article today  which had a speedy delete notice on it, and I and others went there and improved it greatly.  I'm sure people can look over the large number of articles nominated and cherry pick a few examples here and there, where someone had the nerve not to agree with them on something, and then claim since they saw two people there from the ARS it must be used for canvasing somehow, but honestly now, that's just ridiculous.   D r e a m Focus  22:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * AB-SO-LUTELY. I don't comment on everything that makes it to ARS. My "Keep" vote on any given AfD isn't necessarily an ARS nomination either. I personally prefer to keep ARS nominations to AfDs ranging from questionable (Diary of a Bad Man) to outright ridiculous (Linda Tripp). It's all fine and good to say ARS shouldn't canvass, but if you take away the Rescue List and Rescue Template, you leave ARS with no other alternative. How convenient ... Faustus37 (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dream, from your voting statistics you voted keep 98.1% of the time out of the last 250 AfDs. Warden 58.8%, Faustus37 54.8%. These numbers are very much above the actual keep/merge/delete ratios of typical articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What's your point?  It says that most of the time I said keep, the article was kept. 133 times I said keep it ended in Keep(Keep and speedy keep combined here), 30 times it ended in delete, and 36 times no consensus.  So most of the time people agree with me.  I go looking for articles to improve and thus keep, while others seem to go around spending most of their time finding things to try to delete.  I have nominated articles for deletion before then when I come across an obvious case of something deserving it.  And the other two editors being mentioned makes no sense at all.  How does voting keep 58.8 or 54.8 percent of the time prove your case?   D r e a m Focus  00:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My thought exactly. You're not exactly a paragon of objectivity either, Wolfie. That said, all three of us are pretty darn close to each other in the "where vote didn't match result" category. If I'm an outlier, you're just as bad the other way if not worse. Faustus37 (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How does voting more than 50% of the time prove my case? Because the actual number of articles kept is far below 50%: at around 20%. ARS members are all anomalistically high because they can vote stack AfDs through the rescue list. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, wouldn't it also be true one could err too far the other way? Care to back that up with hard data? Otherwise we're just throwing numbers at each other. Faustus37 (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If the ones sent to the Rescue list have a higher rate of being saved, its not from vote stacking, its because they improve the articles and prove they are notable. AFD is not a vote.  And please provide some evidence for your claims to prove you aren't just making up numbers at random to try to convince people of your case.  Are these articles that went to AFD, or does it include all the speedy deletes as well?  Were those that had at least four people participating far more likely to be kept than those that went unnoticed and had only two or three people showing up?   D r e a m Focus  01:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Along those lines, how many times do you look at an AfD and decline to comment on it at all? I do that, a lot. Perhaps one chooses to comment only in the AfDs one feels should be Keeps (or Deletes, whatever), but as far as the rest go one is content to let the chips fall as they may. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration as well? Ultimately these toolserver stats don't mean a heck of a lot. Faustus37 (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop throwing statistics as if they had any meaning? Diego (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Anyone else saw the title of this discussion and thought it read as 2nd round? Diego (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a battleground. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In the nomination, I'm mentioned for making a simple mistake which I admitted and gave a valid reason for at Articles_for_deletion/Lagrangian-Eulerian_Advection That article did end in a snow keep. I didn't look too deep into it, since it was only one of a batch of things nominated at once by the same guy, and everyone else had already found references to prove it was notable. Do you eliminate a Wikiproject simple because of something that minor?  D r e a m Focus  23:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * " didn't look too deep into it, since it was ...". That's the issue. You turned up and voted keep without understanding the issues. I also voted keep because I could recognise the significant coverage in reliable sources, indicative of notability (without any other relevant issues). You voted keep whilst completely misunderstanding the issues and getting the inventor wrong by several centuries. Other ARS members hindered the article by adding clear original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to another incorrect accusation against me in the deletion nomination:
 * No improvements have been made to the article as of this verison of the AfD 19:03, 10 October 2012 no edits to the article were made after it was listed. ARS member Dream Focus just turned up to vote keep and didn't improve the article. His rationale was a WP:GOOGLEHITS/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: .


 * If anyone bothers to click that link and read what I said, it certainly was not a Google hits or a otherstuffexist argument. Good reading comprehension skills are important to editing Wikipedia.  I pointed out that there is a lot of mention of political families in the media, and suggested "Just change the name to have the word list in front of it, and we're fine." This was clearly a list article, like others of its kind, and renaming it would be reasonable.  In regards to what the nominator of this particular AFD said about "constant problems from vandals", I did list other such articles like this exist who don't have any "constant problems from vandals", and mentioned the information is also in another list article already. List_of_political_families Perhaps I could've worded things clearer.  At any rate, I fail to see how these few cherrypicked examples justify destroying a Wikiproject.   D r e a m Focus  23:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, without prejudice to creation of a Request for Comments if the nominators desire. I don't believe that Miscellany for Deletion is the right place for what is really a broad-ranging discussion of the Article Rescue Squadron. After reading Milowent's comment above, I'm concerned that there may be some forum shopping at play here. Editing disputes belong in dispute resolution, not deletion nominations. If there is a problem with the Article Rescue Squadron, it shouldn't be raised repeatedly in a template deletion, a miscellany for deletion, and on the Administrators Noticeboard. I weighed in on the previous Request for Comment, and I think that was a good process. If there are allegedly problems with the ARS conduct since them, I'd be interested in reading a request for comment with a detailed presentation of the evidence on both sides. Fagles (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Forum shopping? Which forum have I proposed anything at previously? You are referring to different people, bringing issues up. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:MULTI. Diego (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, I have only started a thread in one location; i.e this one. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but MULTI suggests that fragmented discussions should be held at the same place and links used to use links to the previous discussion, not new discussions started for what's essentially the same topic that was already ongoing at the TfD. Diego (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This MfD was started since fluffernutter said in the template discussion that it was the proper way to proceed. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment FWIW, I intend to watchlist the rescue list and start participating there as well. At this point, as someone who has quite limited experience with ARS, it is hard for me to know what exactly is going on. I think that the idea is a good one, the problem may be the execution of the idea. Without prejudice to the closing of this MfD, I will begin to take part at the Rescue List, helping to determine what articles may actually meet notability and what may not.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 23:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, on the Rescue Squadron's talk page today, someone asked for help for a speech article today which had a speedy delete notice on it, and I and others went there and improved it greatly.  Note that at the Rescue List right now is another speech article  which no one went to and said "keep" at.  I looked for sources for it too, like I do for everything, but not finding anything to convince me it was notable like the other article was, although I didn't feel absolutely certain it wasn't notable either, so just didn't comment at all.  So obviously I don't just run around shouting keep everywhere as the nominator accuses me of at the top of this AFD.   D r e a m Focus  00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's easy to see from your voting statistics that these events aren't representative. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do these voting statistics record how many AFDs I did not participate in at all? You aren't making any sense here.    D r e a m Focus  00:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am referring to situations where articles are listed and ARS members don't turn up to vote keep whilst being listed. It is not the usual, and doesn't really indicate that you didn't decide to not vote, since noone expressed anything. Are you suggesting that you ignore AfDs because you can't vote keep? Barack Obama speech to Clinton Global Initiative, 2012 has only been listed for about one day. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you gone through all the AFDs listed and counted how many times I do or do not appear? As I said, if I can't be 100% certain one way or the other, I don't participate.   D r e a m Focus  00:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was using toolserver. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For the places you did turn up that is. Places you didn't turn up are irrelevant since there is no evidence for it, and you (and anyone) can make it up after the fact IRWolfie- (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You would have to make a bot to go through every AFD the ARS was informed about, and then search for my name I suppose. Anyway, I assure you, I don't participate in every single thing in the Article Rescue list, nor does anyone else.  And I believe a lot of us participate in AFDs which aren't tagged for help in the Rescue Squadron, there other Wikiprojects out there that list things that interest us.  At WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga I participate in things I can be sure of, and if something is going to be deleted I regularly transwiki its entire history to the Manga wikia I created for that purpose.  Do you believe it is a canvassing tool if some regular editors go through things tagged in other Wikiproject and vote regularly on things?  This Wikiproject acts the same as others.   D r e a m Focus  01:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's look at a recent example of the ARS in action with this rescue list: Articles_for_deletion/Albannach. Good turn out at the AfD from ARS members: Dream Focus, DThomsen8, and Warden voted keep. Faustus turned up and tried to close the AfD as no consensus (after voting of course): . Dream didn't bother improving the article, Thomsen did a small edit, warden added . Dthomsen also forgot to notify about it being listed, but Faustus added that afterwards. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a particularly sloppy miscue on my part which has since been addressed and closed at ANI. ARS and its tools aren't the culprit here. That mess stems primarily from me being an idiot. Nothing more. Faustus37 (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Most people who show up for any AFD there is don't edit the article. Wikiprojects keep list of active AFDs all the time, and their members go there and participate as they see fit.  I do use my highbeam account and Google news archive search to look for sources I read through and do add to articles at times, but in this case, the work had already been done, I having nothing to add.  Note that this article was listed in the Article Rescue list tagged for nominated for deletion at November 22nd, and it was until December 4th I participate, I not sure if it was or was not notable before, so just checking back on it, and stating that Warden's improvements did prove it was.  No one rushed over there to say "keep" just because help was asked for.   D r e a m Focus  01:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The ARS discussion of that listing at Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list shows that the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Albannach is completely above board. Its been relisted *three* times at AfD with no one seeming to care much.  Even ARS has been lukewarm on it, and the lack of commenters shows that most everyone else is feeling the same.  If we're some great canvassing operation, why do just a few folks dribble in weeks after this AfD should have been closed?  We suck at canvassing, if that's our goal.  Furthermore, this cherry-picking of random listings is not rational evidence of inappropriate behavior by the project.  Why don't you cherry pick discussions like Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list/Archive_10 where we *approved* of deletion after research?  Or Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list/Archive_4 which was rescued during the last RFC, not that anybody noticed.  Indeed, one can list scores of articles we rescued that few would quibble with, including best cases where the nominator herself is convinced.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been too busy in recent days to pay any attention to the rescue list. My edits to Albannach were due to the discussion at ANI, not the rescue list.  ANI is far more noticeable on my watchlist due to hyped-up section titles like Dream Focus, CallawayRox, and the ARS drama machine, again.  I noticed in that case that User:IRWolfie- made hostile comments about me without notifying me directly, as is customary and courteous for discussions at ANI.  Per WP:POT, his complaints about other editors should therefore be taken with a pinch of salt.  The bottom line in this case is that I did significant research on the topic in question and added multiple citations to the article. Warden (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Warden, you are aware that the thread was closed at the same time as I commented. So why would I have notified you about a closed thread? IRWolfie- (talk)


 * Keep People really need to stop picking at this issue, there is no policy-based reason for this nomination. I would think the community is tired that people keep at this - just let it go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The examples presented in the nomination are feeble anecdotes rather than solid evidence — see cherry picking (fallacy).  And they don't stand close inspection as the case of Albannach shows.  That was put on the rescue list on the 22 November but had to be relisted more than once after that because hardly any editors showed up.  To suggest that this is any kind of significant canvassing is a blatant falsehood.  It wasn't until the matter went to ANI that editors showed up in any numbers.  Perhaps we should delete ANI instead ...? --Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 December 2012‎
 * Keep, and can we please dish out trouts to those who keep pushing the 'the ARS is all evil inclusionists' point of view? The continual battlegrounding on this could easily give the impression of a witchhunt to some with less good faith. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep reluctantly, and damn you for making me semi-agree with these knuckleheads. You can't fault one wiki-project for flagging XfDs in the same way that other normal wiki-projects do.  If there are specific editors who are being d-bags and misusing it, then make use of the appropriate forums to address the d-baggery. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, agreeing with the masked stranger three above. Shenme (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I should note that other delsorts are essentially just subcats for AfDs tied to specific WikiProjects concerning a topic area. Unlike other groups, the ARS has a specific partisan slant regarding AfD that they have made no effort to conceal. During the RfC, many ARS members even voted in favor of the view that the project is biased in favor of an "inclusionist" position. The instructions for the list explicitly demand editors give "specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia", which runs afoul of WP:CANVASS as messages that "attempt to sway the person reading the message" are a form of canvassing as any application of common sense would suggest. Canvassing is a policy-based reason for deletion, though I would now prefer to see the ARS members make a determined attempt at meaningful reform before taking this step.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, "specific rationale" which ARS members are free to accept ... or not. Some rationales are better than others. Exactly none of us signed a blood oath to protect articles at all costs. We're not the Borg, y'all. Personally I've taken a pass on several ARS nominations in the recent past. Note ARS doesn't come to the aid of every AfD, or even to most of them. At this very moment there are literally hundreds of active AfD conversations. ARS has open cases on a grand total of TWO of them, one of which being an attempt to delete our template I might add. That's a very significant point IMHO. Faustus37 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ADDENDUM: Barack Obama speech to Clinton Global Initiative, 2012 has been on the ARS list for well over 24 hours now. Note the deafening indifference from our members ... Faustus37 (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're arguing that the problems are only of form and not substance? That if it shared the Delsort format all this prosecution would go away? That's tempting; maybe we should just move the rescue list to delsort to make all drama disappear (ha!). FYI the instructions you mention were included specifically because someone complained that the ARS was tagging articles for unclear reasons. If you don't like the wording, just go ahead and propose a change at the project's talk page. The project page already went through a thorough redesign trying to address the concerns about inclusionist imaginary that you and others raised at the RfC; but now instead of proposing more changes to fix the remaining concerns, you're wielding against the project the bits that nobody complained about? Diego (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All making it a simple delsort would do is enable the type of drive-by tagging that the rescue tag allowed, with the added problem of drawing attention to the AfD. That would just make this even more likely to be used for canvassing instead of improving articles.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep the position that "anything which can be sourced or otherwise improved to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines should be kept" is hardly a partisan position. Rather, it should be the basic foundation on which all Wikipedians contribute in AfDs... but it isn't. I'd actually favor putting the rescue tag back on article pages alongside the AfD tag, because preventing the removal of potentially encyclopedic content is one of the highest callings, and we need to recruit editors willing to polish up the substandard articles which could shine with a bit of effort. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Better to keep 10 substandard articles than to delete one good one. Yes, crap exists, but it's not like we're gonna crash the Internet with it. Faustus37 (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Jclemens, the issue is that this idealized example isn't the actual situation with this list. More often than not the ARS members turn up to the AfD whilst doing minimal work on the articles, at times adding OR to beef it up (contrasting with say Silver Seren who typically makes great improvements), they sometimes don't notify anyone that it hasn't been listed, and then they also skew the discussion with sometimes weak arguments. They also sometimes turn up and NAC the AfDs. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that some of that has happened. But the proposed solution is like eliminating AN/ANI just because some people drama-monger there.  There is a purpose for article rescue, and if the administrator corps can't sort out policy-based deletion arguments, then it's really on their collective shoulders, not the hyper-inclusionists'. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to be a pointy nom by someone ignoring previous deletes and rfcs who disagrees with and is critical of the ARS.  Th e S te ve   10:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pointy Nom? I haven't taken part in any previous RfC. Look at the merits of the case rather than dismissing it out of hand. There are legitimate issues here which I did try to resolve through the ARS, but these efforts were rebuffed. (I hope the closer takes into account the large number of ARS members turning up to vote keep and accuse those of disagreeing of having a grudge or being POINTy while ignoring the issues). I am critical of the ARS, specifically this list, or I would not have put it up for MfD (do you expect someone who is not critical of what is going on with the list to put it up for MfD?). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What previous steps did you take to address your concerts through the ARS? I didn't see you participating at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron nor Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list, and I have both pages in my watchlist. Diego (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_57, Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_57. I did include a diff of one of these in my MfD Nomination ... IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You should be nominating things because they meet the deletion criteria, not because you have a problem with the way a wikiproject operates. You may not have taken part in the previous Mfd or Rfc, but I'm reasonably sure you're aware of them.  If not, I will happily bring you up to speed:  Community consensus after a ridiculous number of comments was that the ARS isn't canvassing inappropriately.  Your WP:POINT seems to be that you disagree.   Th e S te ve   13:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No you are misrepresenting the RfC. The last RFC said: "There certainly is consensus that some canvassing does happen through ARS, those who oppose the stipulation accept it happens and those who support it concede that it happens less frequently than it used to." That RFC happened 5 months ago, the issue is with this Rescue List (specifically), and the subsequent increase in inappropriate canvassing that has occurred because of this rescue list post-RfC. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is utterly unproven, IRWolfie-, and we've demolished every example you've randomly tried to put out there so far. You said you were going to "take a month" and amass a huge amount of evidence of this alleged behavior and you came up with nothing!  Quote: "I will take the full month in constructing an RfC, with references back to the original."  WHERE IS IT?  WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THE PRIOR RFC?  Instead, you gave it up.  Really, I am completely flummoxed that an editor like you that fights anti-science crazies so well is so willing to abandon research and evidence in favor of emotion in this case.  I bet you'd be an admin already if you didn't have outliers like this.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  13:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you please not characterize me as some sort of fighter. I grew disinterested in doing an RfC because I became disinterested in the issues surrounding the ARS due to time constraints; I moved on to other things. I then happened across the ANI thread where I was mentioned, which linked to a template discussion, where it was suggested that the MfD was the correct way to proceed. I then created that MfD. On creating this thread I am told by multiple ARS members that I have "a grudge", that I'm being "POINTy" etc etc. I tried to resolve the issues some time ago, but the behaviour on the list hasn't changed, instead it got worse. I even gave the list a shot to see what would happen if I listed something which had the potential to be kept rather than merged. Despite your characterizations, Andy (above), voted keep last discussion, yet you characterize him as part of some team; rather than thinking of us as editors highlighting legitimate issues here you group us all together as haters and assume we are doing this because we have grudges. This isn't a grudge, and it's not a battle. I am critical of this list because it is used disruptively. If the list is deleted, I won't be standing around to gloat; I will be back to working on other things in the area I find interesting. I still see use for the ARS, just not with this list; there are other ways to prevent notable topics to be deleted, such as preventive clean ups, or working on deprodded articles. The list would be great if it worked fine, but it doesn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wolfie, imagine if a scientist stated he needed to gather robust evidence to support a claim, and then abandoned his quest, yet still advanced his claim. You'd be another Anthony Holland, the sort of stuff you make sure doesn't get put on wikipedia without scrutiny. --Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  14:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your cheap and insulting shot at me. You have exhausted my capacity to assume good faith with your motives and thus I will not participate further. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is your RFC evidence?--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 15:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, if we have enough evidences that specific members of the project use it for canvassing, gaming the system and so on, let's deal individually with them with warnigs, blocks, topic bannings and so on. If there are issues with the general "modus operandi" of the project then discuss objectives and rules and fix them. But, as I said in the related deletion discussion,  having a group of "researchers" and users of goodwill that try to improve articles listed for deletion is a fine thing. And yes, as said above by Bushranger, there's too much battlegrounding here. Cavarrone (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the multiple reasons stated above that are much clearer than anything I would be able to hash together. Every argument that relies on toolserver data about !voting records for ARS members totally undermines the rationale here - and the points about how many articles go to the ARS list and still get deleted/ignored are persuasive. If this is a canvassing operation, it's a piss-poor one. Move along. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears most of the keep votes are coming from ARS members. Any admin reviewing this should keep that much in mind.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would appear that keep votes from ardent deletionists like Tarc that say "damn you for making me semi-agree with these knuckleheads" are not ARS members. Tarc voting to keep something is like DGG voting to delete.  Its very significant and noticed.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  15:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments. I'm not taking a position yet, but I'm having a few repeated thoughts as I read this MfD, so I thought I'd share. First, there does exist historical precedent for disbanding a problematic Wikiproject by MfDing it. So as far as the matter of "the ARS exists to canvass, they need to be made to stop" vs. "this isn't the way to get ARS to stop ARSing," it may not be an ideal way but it does seem to be a way, if we're going by what's worked in the past. That's not to say that trying to accomplish an ARS shutdown via MfDing one subpage belonging to it is a wise choice, as opposed to MfDing the project itself, or just having an RfC; that's just to say that there's precedent that this is not necessarily an out-of-process way to address the matter. Second, I see a number of names popping up again and again (and again, and again, and AGAIN) in this MfD. IRWolfie, Spoildead, Dream Focus, Purplebackpack, Milowent, Devil's Advocate - is there anything I can say to convince the lot of you to back away from this discussion and let uninvolved parties carry on with it? You've all made your points, loudly and repeatedly, and while it's obvious that you care a whole lot about what happens here, the melee caused by you arguing with each other is in danger of violently derailing what we're here to do, which is discuss whether deleting the ARS rescue list is appropriate based on Wikipedia's policies. I would venture to say that there's more to be gained (on all sides of the debate) by you guys collectively retiring to the sidelines to let the rest of the community hash this out than there is by you continuing to go at each other. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take that pledge if the others do as well. It appears Wolfie will as well.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  15:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made exactly three comments on this page, now four I guess, and none of them have been particularly biting. Not sure why you are picking on me. :( --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't think any of the issues raised in the nomination negate the legitimate benefits provided - by letting the community know that an editor believes a particular article up for deletion meets our guidelines but needs help finding evidence, if indeed such evidence exists, and thus avoiding inappropriate deletions of content. If notices are not being provided, that is a separate issue that should be addressed by a consensus that notification is required, if indeed such consensus can be achieved.  If a particular editor is making AfD !votes that are not based on policy or are otherwise inappropriate, those !votes would be ignored (and it is not clear that that editor would not make the same !votes via looking up articles at the AfD page.  And, as the nomination states, the rescue list is available to everyone; if it happens to be used more by "inclusionists" than by other "ists" that is not a problem with the list either; other "ists" are perfectly able to use it too. Rlendog (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll also address an issue stated by pbp: "A perusal through the ARS' archives will note that articles tagged with the rescue tag are very disproportionally kept in comparison to the average AfD outcome." That does not indicate a problem with the list, it could just as easily mean that articles listed for rescue are done appropriately - i.e., they are being listed because the editor doing so is correct that there are legitimate reasons to keep the listed article, and that is being reflected in the AfD results.  Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep What Tarc said. The list itself is not a problem and misuse and/or misconduct by users who happen to be members of ARS should be dealt with on a per-user basis. Regards  So Why  15:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Going back to an earlier argument comparing Wikiproject deletion sorting to ARS deletion sorting, the reason that WP's get deletion sorting is not for them to keep articles listed on there, but to provide their expert input in that topic area to evaluate for keep or delete. In the same manner, when an AFD is listed at ARS, it should be ARS' expertise in rescuing articles to the table, not just to add more !votes. That said, the !voting by ARS on articles on this list is not itself the issue but the type of !voting.  The AFD of List of castes is a good example of positive !votes and debate contributed by ARS to help explain why the article should be kept, using policy and past cases. That is an appropriate "rescue" and the type we want ARS to continue doing, in addition to when they can find sourcing or improve articles.  Even ARS members coming to an AFD and explaining how a topic claimed non-notable is notable by showing how the sources are reliable and provide significant coverage is good to have.  However, and this is my spot-checking, personal experience without any hard numbers to back it up, more often than not ARS participation at AFDs reduces down to "Keep, the topic is notable." without any further discussion or explanation. Yes, admin closures should clearly review and discount rational-less !votes, but we all need to recognize that numbers can sway that. Thus, the reason I'd be inclined to delete this list is that it is aimed to foster the latter type of behavior, and maintain a "scorecard" for how well they do.  The "weak" is that there may be ways for ARS to alter this behavior (as some like Tarc have suggested) to avoid the list being used to just pile on the keep !votes, but at the same time, this seems like the 3rd repeat of where it has been pointed out that ARS seems to canvass for !votes and they assure us they will stop that.  If we had more confidence the list would be used primarily to bring ARS experts to help improve an article and not to try to sway an AFD with numbers, I'd edge on keeping it.  Right now I just don't see that, and given the number of times before, I don't know if we would ever see that. --M ASEM  (t) 16:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The problem is not now nor has it ever been the list itself, the problem has been the manner in which some people use and respond to it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These folks seem to irritate me supremely but I do think they have a valid purpose, I think it stretches the limits of tolerance at times and there is a bullish keep anything mentality but it takes all types for the peadia to run, so about as lukewarm a keep as I can give I give it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Having seen said list in action, it appears that, indeed the users are using it to keep articles for the sake of keeping articles, rather than for quality Encyclopedic content. Soxwon (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Was wondering how have you seen "said list in action"? Because someone just listed your nomination at Articles for deletion/Daniel O'Brien (comedian), where you erroneously overlooked a feature on the subject in Forbes?  If your nomination was correct that there was no mainstream coverage of the individual, it may not have gotten listed.  I personally care deeply about the integrity and sourcing of content.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  03:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Based on similar arguments, one can suggest deleting almost any similar list in other wikiprojects. But there is a bigger general problem. We must encourage, not discourage all types of communication on the project, and especially such communication that occur openly in wikispace. Claims of canvassing harm collaboration. The AfD are closed (or suppose to be closed) based on the merit of argument, not head count.My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep- Deleting the list is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The list serves a valuable purpose- allowing viable articles that might be otherwise deleted to be retained on their own merits. Individual editors who cause problems can be handled as the situation warrants. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this list is fundamentally different from every other deletion sorting list in existence. Every other list classifies deletion discussions by subject matter, and listing a debate in one only serves to bring in editors with a particular interest in the subject of the article. This list, by contrast, serves to bring in editors who want the deletion discussion to be closed one way, and thus serves as a canvassing tool. If the purpose of the ARS was to ensure that the right decision was made in all deletion discussions then there would be no problem, but the purpose of the ARS is to get articles kept at AfD. (Note I'm not saying here that the goal of the ARS is to get as many AfDs as possible closed as Keep. I'm saying that it's not part of their mission or purpose to argue that an article should be deleted, even if the article really should be deleted.) To answer some other arguments made above: Yes, our AfD process should be able to deal with canvassed editors, and closing administrators should discount bad arguments, at least in theory. The reality is that the vote count does play a significant role in AfD closing, and if an AfD mostly consists of people saying that the subject is notable then the closer would have to be quite brave to close it as anything other than Keep, whatever the strength of argument supporting that view. And the problem goes deeper than individual cases or individual editors, it's a fundamental problem with the list and its purpose. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 12:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be curious to see the percentages on this point. How many AFDs per day do we get, and of those how many end up at ARS? And of that number, how many are ultimately kept? And of THOSE articles, how many were kept dubiously? That is to say, how many were kept despite insufficient sources, critical flaws, etc, but only because a bunch of ARS members rolled in and said "Keep because reasons." If Admins are closing AFDs where notability has not been demonstrated simply because a bunch of people said keep, then the flaw is not in ARS but in the admin corps. And that means we need more admins with the stones to close against the majority - a problem outside the scope of this MFD. Besides, the stated intent of this list (and, indeed, the project) is to get articles that should be kept and make sure they do indeed get kept. So of those hundred-odd AFDs each day, only a couple (if that) go to ARS. Those are the borderline cases, where there's a reasonable argument that the subject is notable or that the article could be kept with work, etc. I want to see empirical data - of these articles tagged for rescue, how many are indeed rescued properly (with sources, notability, etc)? If this is a problem, let's show how big a problem it is - or is not. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument is a good deal more general than that. If administrators should be very willing to close against the majority, and cases of administrators closing deletion discussions based on dubious arguments are only the fault of the admin corps, then why do we have a rule against canvassing at all? Canvassing is always going to be a problem as long as closing administrators take the number of participants on each side into account at all, and an administrator who never took this into account would be making bad decisions based on supervoting.
 * The cases of improper influence by the ARS on deletion discussions are a good deal more complex than "a bunch of people said keep". The best illustration I know of is this AfD. Had the ARS not got involved that discussion would have been a straightforward delete (every Keep !voter but one is a member of the ARS, and the first ARS member to comment tagged the article for rescue). Instead, though, a large number of sources were added to the article and the AfD in an attempt to demonstrate notability. They didn't actually demonstrate notability, for various reasons, and fortunately the AfD got more attention than usual from non-ARS people and the article was eventually deleted. However the closing administrator then had to close quite a complex debate, and had the debate not attracted more than usual attention from outside the ARS I think there is a good chance it would have been closed as Keep or No Consensus.
 * A statistical analysis of the list of the type you suggest would be quite difficult. It isn't going to be straightforward to decide if an individual AfD closure was proper or not, and if the analysis relies on the opinion of a single person then it isn't worth much. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 14:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a rule about canvassing so that the loudest voice does not win a debate. And the problem runs both ways - you just said that the article ended up being deleted because "fortunately the AfD got more attention than usual from non-ARS people"... and isn't that the exact same problem in reverse? That article is an obvious delete - but it's also from last year. More importantly, it predates WP:RFC/ARS. Much has changed since the days of that AFD - including the structure and use of the page under discussion here.
 * My point about the statistics is that we can't argue that this page is frequently used for canvassing unless we see how often it is used overall, and then judge from that list how many incidents of abuse occurred. I haven't worked with the ARS since the Bush Administration, so someone help me - what stops non-ARS members from watching this list and showing up to the listed AFDs and voting "Delete per nom"? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing. But that rarely happens, isn't the purpose of the list, and if it did happen it wouldn't make the situation any better - every debate listed on it would turn into a massive punch-up between inclusionists and deletionists. I had a look for a more recent example of problematic influence on a deletion discussion, and I quickly found this one from three months ago. The article subject is a dead dog or pig found in a river which generated a brief spurt of coverage in newspapers in July. The nomination was based on WP:NOTNEWS and argued that the subject has no lasting significance. After the debate was included on the list, ARS members turned up, dumped a load of sources into the article and debate, and argued that since the topic met the GNG the article should be kept. This is basically irrelevant to the nomination, as all the sources provided were published over a two day period and certainly don't refute the idea that the article subject has no lasting significance. The debate was closed as no consensus, with the closing admin reasoning that it wasn't their place to make judgements about the quality of the sources. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 15:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Its quite clear that in the East River Monster discussion the content would be kept, without prejudice a future merge discussion. Note that some ARS commenters said merger was a possible option.  And at least one of the delete votes also came from an editor alerted by its presence on the rescue list (not uncommon at all, as a number of "deletionists" police the list and chose not to opine.)  Otherwise, the nomination only appeared to draw one clear delete vote on its own, and one "weak delete".  And of course you are just trying to cherry pick, you don't pick things like Articles for deletion/Too Good to Be True (1936 song) where the nominator withdraws the nomination and thanks ARS members.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  15:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The comments break down as follows: four editors wanted the page deleted, two wanted it merged (using very similar reasoning to the delete people), and seven wanted it kept. Five of those seven were members of the ARS (and only one mentioned merging, saying it was the "minimum" acceptable outcome), so the outcome was largely determined by the ARS. The arguments for keeping the article by and large did not address the argument for deletion - that some topic passed the GNG does not mean it should be included and does not mean it has any lasting significance. Again if this list is serving to draw in both inclusionists and deletionists then it is effectively making AfD a battleground. I'm not saying the ARS do not do any good work, I'm saying there are serious problems with some of the work that they do and that the existence of this list is a major cause of that. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 16:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One AfD does not make a "serious problem," even if one accepts your summary. The fact that the line of argument you thought was dispositive was not addressed fully is not any editors fault.  Also, there's no evidence that the outcome of the AfD would have been any different if not listed.  (See, e.g., Articles for deletion/Thetis Lake monster (kept, not listed at ARS)).  ARS draws attention to borderline articles sometimes (which is why they get listed, because rescue may be possible), which are going to be the source of some controversy no matter what.  But correlation is not causation.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  17:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that there's a problem so serious that it requires deleting the list, but that it's impossible to prove that this is a serious problem? Diego (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that a statistical analysis of the type Ultraexactzz was suggesting would be difficult to do, and if it was done then the result would not be very objective. Milowent: I'm not basing my entire argument on that one AfD, I'm using it as an illustrative example for the kinds of problems I'm discussing. I do think we can conclude that the result was likely to have been different if the ARS hadn't been involved, and as I've already explained I don't think their involvement influenced the discussion positively. And the other AfD you cite is not comparable, as it is four years old and the "monster" in question was apparently still getting coverage forty years after the event. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 17:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep the Article Rescue Squadron and this list serve a useful purpose when listing articles worthy of rescue. Some ARS members need to learn that not everything can be rescued, and some deletionists need to learn not to nominate for deletion articles that shouldn't be deleted. Deleting this list would be a moral victory for the deletionists, but possibly a pyrrhic victory as this list is a way to channel new inclusionists towards articles worthy of rescue. If we delete this list it might become more difficult for new editors of an inclusionist nature to learn when to try a rescue and when not to bother. It also serves as a useful backstop for articles that should be rescued but for which we don't have a topic based wikiproject.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This and one thousand times this. This is not a problem of canvassing; since everyone is able to follow the list and participate in the discussions. It's a problem of people failing to follow consensus building, which is a much more core policy than CANVASS. And there are two parties to any battleground; putting all blame unto the ARS seems radically unfair.
 * Maybe the problem is deeper than it looks, and we should be reviewing the whole dynamics of AfD instead of just this list? There's people all over the place complaining that AfD has lots of random outcomes, supervotes and discussions lingering forever. Instead of devoting so much effort to brawl around our little corner perhaps it's time to expand our views and call for a redesign of the whole keep/delete process. For a start, I've always felt that a feature for soft deletion, where safe but non-notable content that is sent to deletion can be accessed through page history instead of redlinked, would be a great asset for not worrying about unfair deletions in the gray area in which the ARS specializes. Why are we talking in length about the Rescue list when the room is cramped with a herd of enormous elephants? Diego (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Self-answer - Actually this is pretty much what is happening here. Big open discussion about AfD and newly created articles. Diego (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I expect nothing. Hence I am never disappointed. That's my philosophy.  Oh No! It's Faustus37!  it is what it is - speak at the tone 13:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * questions - when is the line crossed? at what point do we determine that a theoretical positive is outweighed by a practical negative? when something that has legitimate and appropriate function, but is frequently inappropriately used, what is the most effective way to deal with that? has that line been crossed here? will deletion of this page fix the issue or cause different and potentially greater harm? is there a better way to deal with the actual underlying issues? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you prove it is "frequently inappropriately used"? I don't see that happening at all, as evident by the fact of how few articles ever attract even a handful of people from the ARS, and how articles that no one can find any sources to prove notable aren't likely to get any participates at all.  D r e a m Focus  18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The RFC concluded it was not proven to be frequently inappropriately used. And its not a "theoretical positive", there's no question the ARS has done lots of great work, one of the only groups on the project that has gotten significant press attention for their work.  What's theoretical and not proven is whether the claimed negatives outweigh the claimed positives.  Personally I think deletion would cause greater harm for a few reasons:  (1) ARS often serves to cushion a blow for a frustrated editor -- they know we like to protect content, but if we tell them something doesn't merit an article with sympathy, its good editor relations.  The new page patrol does good work, but they create a lot of pissed off uneducated newbies too.  I wouldn't be on the "most articles created" list now if ARS hadn't saved me from being run off.  (2) ARS is transparent.  Without it, its activities are going to be driven underground, because there will always be editors who believe in the goals of rescuing content at AfD as preferable to deletion, when possible.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  18:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created a few articles in my day. Just about any Idaho-related political or geographical article you care to name has my footprint on it. I've had a fair number of articles deleted on me as well. Sure, like everything else the tools are occasionally misused. But so is AfD in general. Witness such zingers as AfDs for Linda Tripp and Gavrilo Princip. One side needs to keep the other in check. Keep ARS intact. I'll even go so far as to say I'd support the creation of an "Article Deletion Squadron." Hell, I'll help you guys set up. Faustus37 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure its not your intent to imply that without the ARS and their rescuelist that  Princip and Tripp would have been deleted ? --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * Weak keep I'm not crazy about the list, and Tarc puts things nicely above. For the most part, everyone knows the ARS regulars and if there is any misuse or abuse by an individual can be taken care of appropriately. If you're really, really concerned about canvassing, anyone is free to join up and monitor them. One could feasibly add every AfD to the list, rendering it mostly useless. AniMate 23:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. In my experience I have seen this list used blatantly as a method to recruit editors to vote "keep," which is a form of canvassing.  It is a tool that blemishes and discredits legitimate deletion discussions.  I will give the Squadron credit for being a very well organized mob.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And how is it those who choose of their own free will and accord to vote "Keep" discredit "legitimate deletion discussions"? ARS doesn't "recruit" in any sense. That's a stupid thing to say. As much as it is to suggest homosexuals "recruit" others to their ranks. I can't speak for other ARS members, but I can sure say I'm here because I feel passionately about this cause, not because someone told me to join.  Oh No! It's Faustus37!  it is what it is - speak at the tone 06:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he means to recruit them to vote at specific AfDs, not to recruit them to join the ARS p  b  p  06:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean no such thing. As far as ARS nominations of AfDs go, ARS members are free to take them or leave them. They often choose the latter.  Oh No! It's Faustus37!  it is what it is - speak at the tone 06:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Faustus- Purplebackpack was clarifying what I meant. The ARS mobilizes editors to vote 'keep' at deletion discussions, editors who would not normally be involved.  The converse would be the "Delete Squadron," which would equally be wrong for canvassing reasons.  Also, please be a little more civil with your responses.  Instead of calling something a "stupid thing to say," explain what you disagree with and why without resorting to unnecessary attacks.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticizing statements is not the same thing as criticizing people. An ad hominem attack was neither implied nor intended. Apologies if you felt otherwise. In any event, I believe I was very clear in what I said. The rebuttal is that ARS informs, not recruits. No one is FORCED to do ANYTHING. Either defend your point or move on.


 * I don't buy this canvassing crap anyway. I just read WP:CANVAS. Not many people read ARS to begin with (i.e. limited posting). A good post explains the facts (i.e. neutral). It may convey the opinion of the poster, but it doesn't say "vote Keep, you guys!" (i.e. nonpartisan). Finally, ARS is a public page, so it's there for the world to see (i.e. transparency). So ... what's the problem here?  Oh No! It's Faustus37!  it is what it is - speak at the tone 07:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

On balance, I support keeping this list for now, because its deletion would prevent the ARS from functioning at all. If that is the aim, then it should be done directly by deleting the whole of ARS, rather than its subpage. The ARS starts off with the problem that its name encourages a battleground mentality; replacing the word "squadron" with "project" would be easily done, and that fact that such proposals repeatedly fail on the ARS talk page reinforces the perception that the ARS at least tolerates the battleground mentality of some of its participants. That battleground approach has been been reflected in the New York Times, which described service on the Article Rescue Squadron, an elite strike force dedicated to fighting “extremist deletion.”. The term "rescue" is also needlessly partisan, and would be better abandoned. Many ARS members point out that the bloc-voting and canvassing is done by a minority of members, but I have yet to see any sign of efforts by ARS members to stop this abuse of their process. Unless the ARS takes some serious steps to clean up its act, then it will continue to face attempts to delete or cripple it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep  If particular pages on Wikipedia are to be blamed for individual behavioral issues, given the level of drama in accent and hyphen related discussions, we should first discuss WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:MOS .  More clearly: Page deletion is not a substitute for dispute resolution.  --j⚛e deckertalk 18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, without prejudice to a wider discussion of the ARS. I have a lot of sympathy with those with those who deplore the way that the ARS has been used for canvassing, and while the problematic incidents seem to be fewer, they still exist. In theory, the ARS's function is something that everyone should be able to support, but the practice has too often fallen short of the theory.
 * "bloc-voting and canvassing"? Where do any members says that actually happens?  I know in the past we had people who stated their determination to destroy us, going to every article nominated and posting delete, but its been awhile since I saw that happening at all.  Most nominated articles get few participates from the ARS, some get none at all, and some get a lot of people going there, no telling where they came from, sometimes familiar names, sometimes not.   D r e a m Focus  18:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If this deletion proposal is about policy, then I would ask those commenting here to consider Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion, and say whether an MfD can be used to change policy, or not. So far there is one response to my posting there, and I am unsure whether it say an MfD can be used for policy changes, or not. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - ARS is a net positive to the project because it results in articles being improved. IMO admins should be able to use their own discretion to judge whether ARS participation in an XfD has skewed the apparent consensus. Claritas § 21:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason to believe that deletion of this list wll actually help get articles improved. Collect (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I have not yet seen any citation of significant numbers of   article being kept solely because of canvassing by those on the list without being improved in the process. I have seen some examples where individuals thought they had not been improved enough, but their view was not supported by the community. After all, anyone who suspects a particular AfD to be influenced by canvassing for the article can simply use a second AfD, which is very easy. On the other hand, if an article is deleted because of canvassing, it is much more difficult to re-create it without improvements--we go so far as to speedy delete in such cases--the only recourse is deletion review. For equity, we would require a prior deletion review before AfD 2.  Articles are kept improperly, sometimes even kept improperly because of canvassing, and sometimes even after repeated attempts at AfD--I, like most of us, have a mental list of articles we wish had been deleted, but this is usually because of fans of the subject. Personally, I think the project does only a small amount of good--most articles that could be rescued are too difficult to rescue in time provided by the limited number of people interested, but sometimes it does succeed in getting people to improve an article enough. Therefore, there seems to be  no motive for opposing this project except the desire that articles be deleted in spite of consensus otherwise. As for individual statistics, anyone who could get perfect statistics for consensus in voting either always delete or always keep, if they chose obvious AfDs. People who choose to work on the most difficult to decide afds. are the ones who will get the least agreement with consensus. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * KeepBecause I see the problems as twofold - some behavioral problems by individual members and closures based more on the number of !votes and not on policy grounds, neither of which can be fixed by deletion but both of which need attention. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've seen the ARS doing some great work in rescuing articles. I've seen some that were so bad they were obvious deletes and I didn't think they had a chance of survival - until ARS members did some terrific research, turned up good sources, and rewrote a splendid article for us. And surely even the most ardent deletionists are in favour of that, aren't they? What I have not seen is evidence that the presence of this list is significantly derailing the AfD process - on the contrary, I think the balance is very much in favour of the work the ARS does in improving the effectiveness of the AfD process. Do some extreme inclusionists misuse the list just to !vote "Keep" for everything? Maybe. But the solution to that is to address the individuals who do that, not to remove a tool that most ARS members use to good effect. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 8 December 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.