Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (3rd nomination)


 * 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 debate was snowball Speedy keep per a quick consensus. The nominator has not provided evidence of abusive or otherwise troublesome actions from the members of this project. Likewise, no other course of action that has been suggested seems plausible, and I can see no other outcome other than keep. &mdash; Maggot Syn 01:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron
I believe there might have been some good intentions behind this project, but the Article Rescue Squadron is still little more than a mechanism for inclusionist votestacking at WP:AFD, thereby against process. We don't need canvassed editors routinely swooping on AfDs with enthusiastic keeps- in turn corroborated by tenuous, newly found sources- we only need our natural, traditional, Wikipedian consensus building process. If we allow a group of users who clearly have an inclusionist agenda (otherwise they would not join a project whose only aim is to prevent articles from being deleted) to be alerted by a peer who wants to save X or Y article, then I believe we're showing the back door to consensus and opening the front door to canvass. Furthermore, if this Article Rescue Squadron is allowed to remain, I think it's just a matter of time until a deletionist counterpart squadron is created, and that will just put more wood on the fire. Hús ö  nd  20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As discussed in the two previous nominations the purpose of this project is not to votestack AFDs (and indeed would be surprised if there was evidence of it being used for that). If this project can continue to attract editors to improve articles and find sources in order for deletion to no longer be required then I think that should be welcomed. The project does not just include people who could be described as inclusionists but includes people who lean more to deletionism such as User:Neil and User:Gordonofcartoon, but who believe this is a useful project. This can be seen on the membership list. (in the interests of disclosure I am a pretty inactive early member of the project) Davewild (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its purpose might not be votestacking, but the effective result of this project is. Hús  ö  nd  20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you got any examples of that? I see quite a few AFDs and have not seen any evidence of that. Davewild (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just check the !vote tendency after the template is placed somewhere.  Hús  ö  nd  22:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It appears that the effective results would be worthy articles improved and not deleted. I had never heard about this group before, but I will make a sincere effort to sign up and get involved. As described in the article, "...the Rescue Squadron isn't about writing on talk pages. It's about editing article pages. If everybody who cares about preserving important topics glances at one deletion discussion per day (or even one per week), reads through the imperiled article, and rewrites it if it's deserving, people will start to think about the differences between unencyclopedic writing and unencyclopedic topics -- and maybe they'll start contemplating improvement before they contemplate deletion." It is stated explicitly that the objective is to improve articles that can be improved as an alternative to deletion, not as a means to get people to vote mechanically to keep articles. On dozens of occasions, I have edited and improved articles up for deletion, adding the reliable and verifiable sources establishing notability that should have been there in the first place, and swaying an editor or two to switch over to keep an article. An active group of other editors "rescuing" articles subject to potential deletion is a worthy goal entirely in keeping with the goal of this encyclopedia. What would a hypothetical "deletionist counterpart squadron" do together to improve articles that could possibly correspond to the group discussed here? Alansohn (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Saving worthy articles on the way to the chop? That's great and I don't think we have any disagreement there. My point is that it's up to each user to decide what's worthy and what's unworthy, not to advertise the worthiness of something that others may find unworthy (and yet not advertising its unworthiness). Hús  ö  nd  21:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I spend most of my editing time improving articles that are in my narrow field of interest. I check AfD sporadically and I don't have the time or patience to constantly monitor what's been proposed. Many of these articles have little potential to be saved from the chop, but a handful do. I checked out the current list of articles tagged for potential rescue and I added sources to an article that I may never have realized was up for deletion. I don't see that all of the articles tagged for rescue are worthy for deletion, but I appreciate the effort made to suggest that these just might be worthy pf a few minutes of effort. It's something that I will certainly monitor now on a regular basis. Alansohn (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I recently joined the article rescue squadron after realizing "wait, a group exists for doing what I like to do?" It's not about rallying up keep votes, it's about improving articles so that they'll then be encyclopedic enough to be kept. For example, I have access to proquest, lexisnexis, and a bunch of other databases.  I can find sources others can't and use them to improve articles.  I'm new to the group so it is possible the canvassing exists and I just haven't seen it, so if you do have evidence that it's in effect a canvassing organization I'm open to persuasion. My current impression, though, is that it's a not.  Vickser (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, great you improve articles. It's not about that. You can keep improving articles and you are most welcome to improve articles, but this project is not necessary for that and carries a dark side with it. Hús  ö  nd  21:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Dark side"? Instead of not assuming good faith can you please be specific so others can see examples of this "dark side" to which you refer? Banj e  b oi   22:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is about that. The ARS provides a short list of promising articles for those of us who enjoy rescuing.  It's a helpful tool that means we can spend less time searching through AfD and more time improving articles.  The expanded audience of rescuers the listed articles get means they get improved more than they otherwise would.  Both of those things are good for the project.  Do you have any examples of when ARS has been used for vote stacking?  Again, I'm open to learning about when and where you think this has occurred, and open to persuasion if I think you can show that ARS is damaging AfD.  But right now, I don't see damage and I do see a useful group.  Vickser (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong (and ironic) Keep. That the ARS is, again, being sent for deletion itself is bit ironic. The project page itself states So the ARS are wild-eyed inclusionists? No. The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes or making policy simply to ensure that nothing is deleted. The ARS ensure that articles about notable topics do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing which per WP:AFD means that it was not a good candidate for AfD.
 * This project seems quite beneficial to the wikipedia community and project. Accusations of vote-stacking are serious and should be investigated if true. In fact I think this project has gone out of their way to ensure neutrality and focus on just ... rescuing articles and helping those interested in learning more about notability issues and apparent abuses of the AfD process. I'm not seeing the problem here. Banj e  b oi   22:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really care either way, but just to point out the irony in the hope everyone else gets a laugh. :-) —Giggy 05:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh oh - now will any keep !votes be dismissed as vote-stacking? :-) Keep unless substantive evidence of vote-stacking can be found.  ARS is focused on improving suitable articles for deletion/rescue; it seems deeply cynical to ascribe subsequent keep !votes to vote-stacking rather than to, say, the fact that the articles are several times better. --Zeborah (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've participated in a few AfDs where the article in question had the rescue template on, and it did not appear to be an issue. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The placement of Template:rescue on the page Article Rescue Squadron just now drew my attention to this MfD and caused me to robotically vote to keep the project.--Father Goose (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)  But seriously... this project could just as easily be abused for deletionist canvassing as inclusionist -- if you're a deletionist, just watchlist it.  That this project attracts editors' attention to articles facing deletion that are good candidates for improvement to encyclopedic standards -- isn't that something we resoundingly want?--Father Goose (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Joke. It's possible a counterpart deletionist project would be created, though it wouldn't last long -- all someone would need to do is nominate it for deletion and all its members would pile on in support of the nominator. Ba-dum-bump.--Father Goose (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain I am a member of the project, and review all articles that are tagged here to see if they can be brought up to standards. I have also occaisionally tagged articles with when I believed the article to truly be within the scope of the project. In yet another irony, it seems that this proposal is a direct result of the process working exactly as it should on New Jersey School Report Card - an article that has been been greatly improved as a result of being brought to the ARS. Also, nom seems to be a WP:POINT as a result of this AfD discussion. Jim Miller (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge With Intensive Care Unit. Taemyr (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, for exactly the reason that Father Goose suggested. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as harmless and potentially useful. See Article Rescue Squadron/Examples for a few things that were done in the past. If editors draw attention to an article nominated for deletion with the sincere goal of improving the questioned article, that is well within the limits of current policy. I'm not a member of this project but I've previously commented in some project Talk discussions. If anyone feels that the primary *effect* of this project is to stack votes in favor of articles unworthy to be kept at AfD, let's see some cases of that added to the examples file. When I see an article tagged for Rescue, that's not going to keep me from voting Delete if I think that's the right answer. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I reviewed the cited example New Jersey School Report Card. I didn't see vote stacking, I saw an article that became greatly improved due to work of the project.  I see that as a positive, not something that needs to be shut down.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as immensely useful and proactive project; arguing to delete this project would be akin to arguing to delete Articles for Deletion as a deletionist equivalent. Saying there is an "inclusionist agenda" is an assumption of bad faith.  It's more like a group editors who care about improving articles and helping out others.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You Have Got To Be Kidding (yes, that's Keep): ARS looks to be a good and valid way of increasing awareness of worthy articles that have been nominated for deletion, and subjecting them to broader consensus, rather than staying in a potentially small circle of interested parties (that is, people interested in the article or interested in deletion, as one may presume that the former watch the article and the latter watch AfD/MfD).
 * Keep. We are a bit schizophrenic about !voting. We don't vote, it's not a vote, we say again and again. But if it isn't a vote, what is this "votestacking" thing? It's alleged above that vote trends shift after an article is templated with Rescue. Now, if the Rescue Squadron is working properly, wouldn't we expect to see some shift like that? No shift would mean that it was practically useless, a waste of time. Now, if all that happens is that the vote shifts, but the articles aren't improved, that would mean something, at least. But that wasn't alleged. Nominator has made a vague claim, without providing evidence. Show actual harm, and I'll reconsider my !vote. Now, if an article was improperly kept because of votestacking, why, that would be a fine reason for a Deletion Review. So, instead of making vague claims, see what happens if you DRV such an article. What I've seen is that vote trends almost always shift when an article for deletion gets wide publicity, such as being the subject of an AN/I report. What does that mean? I see vote shifts in AfDs, frequently, as arguments develop and new editors become aware. Often AfDs start with a flurry of Delete votes, sometimes made so quickly after nomination that we can tell the editor didn't do any research to confirm the nomination, and the vote is simply "per nom," or a very simple variation on that. No evidence has been presented that Rescue Squadron is harmful, beyond speculation, and some, in fact, that it's working. I.e., it is possible that some articles are being saved from deletion. Whether it is from article improvement, from research done to show that an article topic is notable, or from pure votestacking, could actually be studied. Instead of wasting our time with a useless MfD, without having done that study, do it and share the results first. Present them to the Rescue Squadron for comment. But I'm afraid that the nominator is facing a practically solid wall of Keep votes, and not just a few. Still, if there is a verifiable study that shows harm, it would be grounds to go to DRV and not just get speedily tossed out.--Abd (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bear in mind that anyone who cares about "voting" can use this group's tools for themselves, regardless of how they vote. Even if this were "Inclusionists for article cleanup", that's A-OK by me; "ANYONE for Article Cleanup" is a worthy cause. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reason to delete being .. not a good reason. Naerii 18:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Good intentions and ery inforidable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omaga99 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 July 2008 (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.