Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 11

Proposal for a minor reform to Afd; keep some merge discussions out
I've initiated a proposal at the deletion policy talkpage to speedy close some fresh nominations that are primarily about merging articles rather than deleting them, and moving the discussion to the article talkpage. Input welcome. Skomorokh 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal: apply WP:BEFORE to speedy close in certain cases.
 * Discussion is here. Banj e  b oi   01:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Who owns ARS tags
I've gotten into a few discussions (as has Judgesurreal) over who can place and remove rescue tags. Is there a feeling in the project about this? The feeling I am seeing is that anyone can add them but no one can remove them, even for articles that don't fit the criteria for rescue. That isn't really fair in my opinion. What does everyone else think? Protonk (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * People are clearly placing tags in violation of the rules for placing tags, which are very, very clear;

What the Rescue template is not for * Articles that are not yet or may never be notable", which must mean that notability must not be the question at hand; if there is a question about it, the tag is inappropriate. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think an article that has the "help me!" tag up for 3? 4? days without the addition of a reliable source (when that's the article's weakness) should have the tag removed, the article deleted, and its hometown razed. Well, two out of three.
 * On a related note: the AfDs I'm involved with are a narrow sliver of all of Wikipedia's articles for deletion, but my perception is that few articles tagged for rescue receive any significant improvement from members of this project -- with the one notable exception of Le Grand Roi, but even then he doesn't always go into the article itself to spruce it up. I'd suggest members of this project consider appending WP:ARS or some such to the end of edit summaries when they've worked on an article they stumbled upon because it's been flagged for rescue. I think part of Allementando's/Frederick Day's assertion that ARS is for AfD keep-canvassing stems from so much article "rescuing" being done through AfD !votes not complemented by a clear ability to recognize rescue-squad activity in the aticles themselves. --EEMIV (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On the original topic, anyone can add a rescue tag to an article. I have personally removed them when used on prodded articles, or those that are not currently in AfD. Those articles belong at the WP:WICU. I see no reason why any editor should stop from removing an inappropriate tag, ARS or any other, when they find it. As to the comments above from EEMIV, I have voted on AfDs that were flagged and already rescued before I got to see them. As an example, see Berlin Circle (traffic circle). That article had already had its notability well established before I got to the AfD discussion. It had more than sufficient sourcing added before I saw it. I believe I added a WikiProject banner to the article so that more people would be able to expand it. What else was I supposed to do? I expressed my opinion at AfD that the burden had been met and I moved on. I don't generally work on fiction articles at all, so you won't find an AfD comment from me on the bunch that have been tagged over the last month or so. The scope of the project is to get articles up to the minimum standard to avoid deletion. Usually all that is needed to do that is to add one or two sources and the job is done. Patch 'em up, and move 'em out.  Jim Miller  See me 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One more note, the line about "are not yet or may never be notable" seems to me to correlate directly to the CSD criteria. If notability is a question for consensus, the article goes to AfD. If the article is in AfD, then removing the rescue tag is wholly innappropriate. Speedy candidates should not have rescue tags, and it should be removed from them. Any article in AfD is withn the scope of ARS.  Jim Miller  See me 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your own rules say that it is inappropriate to put the tag on articles with unestablished notability, or in the projects own words, "not yet notable". What could that possibly mean other than it is inappropriate to tag articles with notability issues. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the past I've been reverted for removing the rescue tag as well. In my view: it's a bit out of hand, to see so many things in AFD with the tag on it. I consider it canvassing just to get keep votes. Before the AFD of many of the articles: no one cared about it. But instantly once it hits AFD, the mindset seems to be "oh no it's going to be deleted, let's slap the tag on it". Perhaps I'm being a little harsh, but it's how I feel about the matter. The tag should be used when necessary, not all the time. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Judgesurreal777 makes a valid point that Articles that are not yet or may never be notable isn't very helpful; AfD is sussing that out ARS isn't. I've removed it as it would also seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL - that is how are any of to say a subject might never be notable. As to who should remove them? The closer of the AfD. When the AfD is no more the tag is removed. It's rather argumentative in almost any other respect. AfD generally takes less than a week. The rescue tag is only to be added onto articles after an AfD has started. Both tags and possibly the article will be gone within days. Accusations that it's canvassing have been readily dismissed in the past and frankly wouldn't matter as AfD is not a vote but a process to determine consensus based on policy.  I sometimes feel the tag isn't the most appropriate but then also accept that items I've tagged others don't agree with. I also accept that regardless the AfD process only runs for so long and either an article is kept or not. Generally the number of articles tagged for rescue has remained quite stable, roughly 10-20 at one time. As a percent of how many articles are at AfD at one time my guess this is pretty small.  Banj e  b oi   01:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing about "are not yet or may never be notable" is that it it's a judgement call, and AfD is the place that it's assessed. So, slapping a rescue tag on an article of questionable notability, which is being AfD'ed at the moment, seems to be a plea for assistance in soliciting notability support.  I've yet to see the rescue tag work to "save" an article which had no redeeming qualities. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think my problem is more with tags being applied to a rash of articles that are at AfD but aren't really in need of "rescue" or being rescued. Editors should be able to disagree over whether or not an article is 'suitable' for rescue.  To put a REALLY fine point on it, LeGrand has a particular view of what 'merits rescue' and I want to know if it is the intent of the project for this to be the de facto view. Protonk (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What is that view in a nutshell? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That articles which are not hoaxes, libelous, pedophilic or original research are suitable for inclusion and that some very large subset of that category of articles is suitable for rescue. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ARS does not judge what articles are worthy or rescueable. Anyone can and does add the rescue tag but, like all actions on wikipedia, should be done so in good faith. If an article is going to be deleted because there just isn't enough to keep it around then the rescue tag won't make much of a difference. Likewise adding other tags don't by themselves sprinkle majic editing dust so that suddenly everything improves but the tags do alert readers and editors that there are specific issues to be addressed and the rescue tag encourages those who read it to take action. The rescue tag sometimes attracts the right combination of editors who help improve an article in time to sway the AfD. Does it always do that? Hardly, but neither do we try to discriminate in order to boost our average by only accepting article we know we can fix and keep at AfD. Would it simplify my life if only terribly interesting topics - to me, that is - were presented on my timeframe to try to rescue? Perhaps. But I likely wouldn't have worked on pixel artist, Chris Crocker and a few dozen other articles were they not AfD'd and then tagged for rescue. Really, this is just a tag and will be gone in less than a week. If LeGrand or any other user is adding a rescue tag that doesn't change, in any way, the nature or scope of what this project does. If they are more inclusive then the next editor that really has no influence here as each person simply does what editing they feel is meaningful to them. This is not an inclusionist or deletionist project - we are neutral and try to improve wikipedia by rescuing articles from AfD and all editors are welcome to take part. Banj e  b oi   06:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So if anyone can add the tag, anyone can remove the tag, right? Can there be a good faith disagreement about what merits a rescue tag in an article?  Because what I'm seeing here is that someone can add the tag but that it is not kosher to remove it. Protonk (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In principle anyone can remove a tag. By doing so you are saying that improving the article is impossible. If the primary reason for deleting the article is notability feel free to remove the tag if you have checked every independent reliable source on the planet. Taemyr (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No way. That's ridiculous.  The Ultramarines tag was placed on a space marines chapter after a dozen or so (out of 20) had been redirected or deleted in previous AfD's.  Reliable sources that might have been found on some of the space marine chapters would have cropped up in the months past.  The article wasn't in need of rescue--by this I mean that the article wasn't languishing for want of editor effort--it was never going to be notable unless the notability guidelines changed.  To say that removing the tag requires some impossible evidentiary burden is silly.  Almost all articles are AfD's for notability, should we tag them all now and ask others to prove a negative in order to remove the tags? Protonk (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but unless there is evidence to the contrary we should assume good faith. So when someone places a tag on an article we should believe that he thinks that sources exists, and that he places the tag to request a last ditch effort to find those sources.  If this is a stretch we might talk to the person placing the tag asking him why he felt the tag was warranted in order to make sure he understands what the tag is for.  Ultimately the tag in it self does little damage, needless tagging means that there is a bit clutter in our category, and as such a bit more work for those who are working on rescuing articles.  The upshot of this is that when you remove a tag you are saying that your belif that no sources could exist trumps the other editors belief that those sources might exist.  Taemyr (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can turn that on its head. Clearly the idea here is that an editor's belief that sources exist ALWAYS trumps my belief that sources don't exist.  I don't think there is some inherent value judgment in removing the tag.  it is just like any other part of the article.  I feel that LeGrand adds these tags in good faith.  I have a good faith disagreement over his addition of some tags.  Is it the view of the project that my good faith disagreement is disruptive in some way?


 * I understand the tag is harmless and most tags on articles which aren't to be rescued get deleted with the article, but there are two problems with that. One is the reason I left the project in the first place.  The tags (as it is right now) are worthless.  Totally without value.  When I see an article with an AfD notice and an article with an AfD Notice AND an ARS tag, I can pretty much assume that there is no difference between the two.  I'm trying to come back to the project, but this is basically pushing me away.  I envision ARS tags as a clear signal to ARS members and other contributors that an article will really improve with some hard work and that improvement will cause it to be saved from deletion.  Tagging every article that gets nominated for WP:N blows that right out of the water.  The second reason is that the tagging really puts the lie to the argument that ARS is deletion stance-neutral.  ARS isn't about commenting in AfD's but if the majority of articles tagged are hopeless cases that are going to be deleted because of WP:N then what do we say (Hell, the wall street journal says we are 'against' deletionists)?


 * So I mean....that's all I need. If the consensus is that ARS tags are placed at individual discretion and that removal of them is "improper" (I dispute this because of WP:OWN, but whatever), then I should probably stop watchlisting this project and leave, eh? Protonk (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not saying you can never remove a tag. However I think there is an inherent value judgment in removing the tag because when you remove the tag you are making the call that the article is not rescue worthy on behalf of those members of ARS that have not yet seen the article.  If you personally feel that the article is not rescue worthy you can shrug and move on.  The converse of this is when an editor is when an editor places the rescue template he is bringing the article to the attention of a set of editors who want to attempt to rescue articles.  The decision of whether or not it's worth spending time on improving the article is still up to the individual editor.  For this reason I feel that the bar should be much higher for removing a tag than what it is for placing it.  However, as you are quite correct in pointing out, indiscriminate tagging hurts the project.  I do not believe that any member will dispute this. No policy or guideline will bar you from removing a tag, WP:OWN, WP:IAR, and WP:BOLD upholds your right to do what you feel is best.  However, most project members will feel that the extent of indiscriminate tagging is small enough that the category is still a useful tool.  I am aware that the last sentence is a tautology, editors who feel otherwise will tend to choose not to be a member.  But this means that most members will feel that usually it will be best if you leave the tag in place.Taemyr (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you're right. I've left the project and now I guess I'm done with my flirtation about coming back.  What I can say in closing (for me at least) is that all ARS has of value is editor time.  If I can't be a part of it and really zero in on something to save, something genuinely needing rescue, then it isn't any more helpful than cruising AfD. Protonk (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break
<--Outdent Like Protonk, I'm also disappointed by the articles I've recently seen flagged for rescue. I try to stop by the articles for rescue page whenever I have a bit of extra time for wiki fun, and instead of seeing encyclopedic articles to save, I find myself wading through a bunch of star wars and warhammer 40k ones. That said, I don't think the answer is for people to start removing tags that someone has placed there thinking the article was rescue worthy. Edit warring over the tags isn't a good idea, and I think it's important to give the benefit of the doubt to fellow rescuers in what they think could be rescued. Currently, my way of dealing with tags I disagree with is just ignoring them and moving on.

However, tagging unencyclopedic articles dilutes the value of the tag, and it makes it harder for rescuers to find articles that truly are encyclopedic. In practice I've recently felt like we may need to more concretely define what we mean by encylcopedic topics. The whole point of ARS is to separate out the Arathis (about an East African religious movement in the 1920s and 1930s) from the Snotlings (about a creature in Warhammer 40k). When people tag Snotlings, it means less attention gets paid to the Arathis, which in my opinion is quite harmful to the project, even if meant in good faith. While I wouldn't go around taking down tags, I'm currently disappointed by the articles being tagged, and I would fully support an effort to tighten up the tagging guidelines. That said, if I'm alone in this feeling and others feel tagging warhammer creatures doesn't harm ARS at all, I'm obviously willing to bow to consensus. Vickser (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What is unencyclopedic? There are a boatload of articles on topics that each of us (except for perhaps the most rabid of inclusionists) don't believe merit Wikipedia mention.  I can guarantee that yours and mine will differ, as they will both differ from any third editor's.  The thing about "unencyclopedic" is that it's essentially what CSD (which doesn't involve ARS) and AfD (which does) are for.  CSD is for things that are clearly and unequivocally not for encyclopedic inclusion (at least not in current form), AfD is for things where good editors may differ.  Leaving tags in place until AfD closes ensures that any ARS-monitoring editor sees all the articles so tagged, and from that point he or she can and should exercise discretion to work on those that he or she finds most salvageable.  Thus, by only removing tags at the close of an AfD, we ensure that ARS remains neutral--each editor is free to use his or her own discretion and work on what he or she sees fit.  The downside of that is that editors have to sort through things that they don't consider encyclopedic.  I consider that the lesser of evils. Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you that removing tags is trouble, since, you're right, two people can disagree about some interpretations of encyclopedic, and if it's just two people disagreeing, I'd rather err on the side of keep the tag up. What I'm suggesting is more, "Write better tagging guidelines, so people won't be tagging things like the 40K articles."  With the recent tagging that's been happening, the number of bad articles tagged has discouraged me from going through the list.  Of course, if everyone else does think ARS is appropriate for fictional in-universe articles and wants it to be that way, I'm not going to keep objecting, but I do want to express my concern that over-tagging ends up being bad for the project.  Vickser (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time of the tagging, Arathi looked like this: . It's really two completely different articles, and two completely different topics.  Getting the WoW article deleted would in no way interfere with the creation of the current article. Taemyr (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And while this is the direction of the discussion, maybe we should also remove Popular culture from the list of related WikiProjects and put WICU in its place. I just noticed that it was added back in April, and I don't see the two projects as related.  Jim Miller  See me 17:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that change.
 * Taemyr: I did some edits on Arathi, but I didn't check the history enough to see all the WoW stuff. I wouldn't have supported tagging it at that point in time, and you're right that what's essentially happened in the afd is that the old article got deleted and a completely new article about a different (notable and encyclopedic) subject has been written in its place.
 * My main point is that the rescue tagging of articles about fictional, in-world topics seems to be inappropriate because they're being deleted for reasons outside the scope of ARS. The issue with the warhammer, star wars, star trek, etc articles is that they may or may not violate WP:PLOT, which is, essentially, a talk page issue and outside the scope of ARS.  ARS is for articles about "perfectly notable topic[s]" that might get deleted because of lack of sources, or context, or POV issues, or things of the like which can be fixed with article writing.  If the main issue with the article is that it violates WP:Plot, it's not in the scope of WP:ARS, and I think we should rewrite the project page so they stop getting tagged. Vickser (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To me that seems quite pointy. We tag and rescue articles except these which we just don't like? To remain neutral, IMHO, we allow the tag to go on any article at AfD, and like all of wikipedia we assume good faith that the tagging is done because someone believes the article can be rescued. Removing the rescue tag seems quite contentious - decreeing yourself the arbiter and judge for which a community AfD is in process to do - and all to take a tag off that will only be there for a few days.
 * I don't recall a time when every article was rescuable but personally I've saved a few that were deemed unsalvagable. I'm a bit concerned that folks are getting too passionate about what is at heart a basic effort to save articles. If someone tags an article that isn't rescuable - guess what? It ain't gonna happen! If you go through the list and see one that interests you, then check it out. If you feel it's worth your energy then do what you feel is best. If not, move on. We don't have to "love" our articles because they aren't ours to begin with. Someone will always tag an AfD article for rescue that you're not into and possibly isn't ever going to be rescued - just like people tag articles for AfD that will never get deleted. This happens and it's part of the process of wikipedia - mistakes are made and consensus helps correct many, if not most, of them. There's probably an essay somewhere about "relax it's just wikipedia". Stress is not helping anyone edit better. Choose the articles you want to put energy into and don't stress on the rest. Banj e  b oi   23:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me, the rescue tag can't be removed unless the AFD is over. If it gets removed earlier: a revert happens, due to disagreement. Revert warring doesn't solve anyhing. So I think from now on: if the tag does get removed, people should just leave it off. If you want the article rescued so badly: then improve it how you would like. Many people improving an article is better, but revert warring over a tag should stop. I still think part of this is canvassing, just to get the article kept. The truth of the matter is: the article was probably rarely noticed before the deletion debate, so now editors are worried it could be deleted (even though it "might" be encyclopedic"). The tag just seems to be an excuse for people to include many things. While rescue has helped several articles: it's been put on ones that don't seem to have any notability here. Above, it was stated this wasn't an inclusionist project... but I think it's safe to say it is. Perhaps I'm overreacting a little, but this is how I feel about the tag and the project itself. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about creating sections for article type. It sounds like some don't want to wade through Star Wars articles to find whichever type of article they like to save.  Maybe fiction, people, places, etc.  I guess it may have to be sub cats since they're included by the ARS page by virtue of their category. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * RobJ1981, that does seem to me you may be over-reacting, this entire project is not an inclusionist project even if some people wish it were - it isn't and many of of were ready to walk away when if a proposed merger with the inclusionism project went through. And no, the tag really should not be removed except by the AfD closer. To set oneself up as the judge and jury when a consensus process is determining the suitability for an article is quite disruptive. State your case on the AfD page and allow others to do so as well. At most the tag will be in place as long as the AfD tag, less than a week in the vast majority of cases.
 * Peregrine Fisher, I'm not sure I would support that as being that helpful, mainly as these articles are only listed for about a week, if that. It also would, IMHO, imply a heightened (or lowered) status for some. I've been listing, usually, with the first sentence of the lede. This would seem to indicate the nature of the article enough to know if it's fiction, people, places, etc. I'm uncertain that spending more time to suss out categories would be beneficial and that the lede sentence itself isn't clear enough to convey the information. Is there something different that may work? Banj e  b oi   02:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the first sentence? I've been looking at Article Rescue_Squadron - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can watchlist the page Current articles which is transcluded to the top of this talk page. Banj e  b oi   03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Narrowing the project's scope is not necessarily non-neutral. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Benji, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it being "pointy" to try and clarify the scope of where the ARS tag is appropriate. Generally pointy is a reference to WP:Point, but I'm not quite sure how that would fit in this context.  If you could explain it, that would be great, because right now I'm just not quite understanding what you mean by it.
 * The project has always been about editing article pages of topics that are "perfectly notable" but flawed enough that someone has taken them to AfD. This could be because of lack of context, NPOV issues, lack of references, or other such issues, and that's what ARS is here to fix.  Many of the recent taggings have been of articles where the deletion case centers not on those fixable things, but on interpretation of WP:Plot, and at what point in-world articles cross too far into WP:Not.  That's not the sort of problem ARS can fix: it's the sort of problem that needs to be hashed out on talk pages.  (Which, while a fine pursuit, is also what ARS is emphatically not about.)
 * Not every article at AfD is rescueable, but every article that gets a rescue tag on it is supposed to be. The ARS goal of the ARS is to "ensure that articles about notable topics do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing."  If it's not a notable topic and couldn't be rescued in the first place, it shouldn't have an ARS tag.  And while it's not a big deal if an article gets mistagged every now and then, several times I've checked a majority of the articles in the category have had deletion debates about policy and WP:NOT.  Since the project page explicity states that ARS is not for "Articles that are inappropriate content for Wikipedia per What Wikipedia is not", I think this is an issue we need to deal with. Vickser (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. This is getting more than a bit confusing but I'm happy to keep responding in hopes to resolve some issues. I've moved these comments from the middle of other comments and I'd welcome new sections if the topic is going to branch out unmercifully in several directions.
 * A Man In Black, you state "Narrowing the project's scope is not necessarily non-neutral" which sounds, well philosophical, but did you have a proposal to limit this project in some new way? If so it might be more helpful to start a thread specific to any proposal.
 * Vickser, what I was referring to as pointy, perhaps not the best word choice, was in some way restricting what the tag could be used on. From the beginning, and to this day, the good faith edict has been that the tag is for anyone to apply to AfD'd article that may concern a notable subject and was possibly worth rescuing. Having rescued a few myself that others, in at least one case - everyone, saw as unworthy, I know that AfDs often operate not on what an article can become but only what is there at that moment. I don't fault folks for lacking the vision that an article has more potential than what is there but I do think this speaks to how many borderline can be greatly improved and we are here to help articles not act as judge and jury to which ones are allowed to have the rescue tag. I'm quite stunned that an article, presumably one that will be deleted within days is seen as somehow worse off, in any way, because another tag is on it. That it's a tag to encourage improvement specifically addressing AfD concerns would seem to be welcome. I'm not sure if that is expressing it clearly. Banj e  b oi   10:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't tell where my reply belongs in the thread, because someone fiddled with the indentation.
 * As I recall, I was referring to "To remain neutral, IMHO, we allow the tag to go on any article at AfD, and like all of wikipedia we assume good faith that the tagging is done because someone believes the article can be rescued."
 * It's not unreasonable to say, "This project is focused on saving artices that have [such and such quality]," and remove the rescue tag from articles that don't have that quality. The specific case in point was fiction articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this back on track, I had moved the thread down to ensure I was staying with your point. I think this idea goes better towards modifying the "what the tag is not for" section to instead supply more common sense rather than trying to limit scop. Some fiction articles are completely fine and the issue might be all the aquatics articles that are being cleaned out in some way. Part of this issue is, IMHO, a series of articles being targeted a few at a time, instead of what I think would be less contentious of simply merging some. Twelve articles within the universe of ____ might be better as a list but instead 5 are prodded then 2-3 are sent to AfD separately. I feel this abuses the AfD process instead of simply working with other editors to clean the articles up, centralize a discussion and post a link to the series of articles, "these are a mess and here's a solution that may work", it takes a different tactic but ends up with more cohesion and less angst and lessens the load on those working within AfD to address more complex articles that take time to address. Banj e  b oi   19:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add my voice of concern as well. Without pointing to any specific AFDs, I am increasingly seeing the "rescue" tag applied to articles which promote a lot of "Keep: notable, sources exist somewhere !votes. (Not to accuse everyone in the rescue squad of bad faith. I'm sure most of you, maybe even all of you are actually trying to improve articles, and the !vote-spamming may be a coincidence, or the misunderstanding of a few squad members at worst.) I think there needs to be some kind of check or balance on the rescue tag for that reason. Reversion is an option, but I'd like to have some kind of precise standard to know when reversion is appropriate, to remove the tag. The only other alternative I can think of is excessively bureaucratic and combative: a "AFD scrutiny" tag for AFDs that are being spammed by !votes with incoherent arguments with no evidential basis. I'd hate to see things go down that path, but the growing abuse of the "rescue" tag needs some kind of reasonable and semi-precise limit. Randomran (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, these issues seem to have been covered already. !votes alone don't do much, at all, and closers have gotten pretty sophisticated to see through them going either for or against an article. I still see removing the tag as causing more problems than simply leaving it there until the AfD is closed, which, generally is only a few days. Might help and unconvinced it's causing any real harm. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)