Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 54

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process
There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this Article Rescue Squadron Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As longer as there are no checks and balances for the creation of articles, no more checks and balances are needed for the deletion of them? It is already more than hard enough for most users to get anything deleted, and there are a large number or articles that should get deleted but remain on Wikipedia because editors can't bring themselves to go through the steps to nolinate anything for deletion already. Adding more hoops won't make Wikipedia better. Fram (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering that so far, Northamerica1000 has posted the same thing on three different pages, and each time asked to have the discussion on that specific page, I think it would be wiser to have this discussion in one location, and suggest that Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion is the best place for this. Fram (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please refer to: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion— Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

James Cowley article rescue
Article is about a honoured deceased british soildier who has been awarded Distinguished Conduct Medal and fought in world war 2 event but due to lack of notable references this article is in threat of being deleted. If someone can provide reliable reference to it please do add, Thanks. Dr meetsingh Talk  17:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a borderline case, but some chance of finding references exists to put over the invisible notability line.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable rescue tagging
I tag articles that are likely to actually meet Wikipedia guidelines for topic notability. I read this essay Tagging pages for problems, which is an essay, and not a guideline, yet provides some valuable information. Per this essay, "When adding a tag, keep in mind that other people who might be interested in fixing the problem (or who might dispute the tag) might not immediately see the same problems you do. Even if the problem seems obvious, it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how. Some editors feel this should be mandatory and "drive-by" tagging should be prohibited. Other editors feel that some tags are self-explanatory." Again, this is an essay, and not policy. Oftentimes tags are self-explanatory. However, in following with the spirit of the rescue tag template, it seems reasonable to also comment and/or vote in AfD for articles, although this is not specifically listed in any Wikipedia policies. Another problem is that the template for articles being considered for deletion does not provide options for users to search for reliable sources, while the rescue template does provide these options for users. Perhaps the article being considered for deletion tag should be revised to reflect the source search options present in the rescue template. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I take issue with that, look at the top of EVERY afd and you will see the find sources links, this is looking like you are trying to make a WP:POINT Mt  king  (edits)  12:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's not a Wikipedia policy per se to provide a rationale for every rescue tag, as some editors feel that tags are self-explanatory. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree with the notion of my trying to WP:POINT. This is not my intention. I am posting on this discussion page regarding matters about rescue tags. Again, the source search options in the "article being considered for deletion" template doesn't provide source searching options, whereas the rescue template tag does provide those options. This is a comment on a discussion page, it's not being "disruptive", "pointy", etc. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Several editors, including myself, have previously and frequently objected to the use of drive-by tagging (a practice implicitly opposed by the bolded tag usage instructions) as leaving the appearance of the squadron as merely a vote-stacking organization, whether true or otherwise. This has been a frequent subject of non-member comment for many years and even recently, involving heated and extended debate. IMHO, this is an example of one editor using the tag poorly, the rescue "work" already done, and the tag application serving no purpose other than attracting ARS participants for voting, though such votes were neither applied nor necessary. I appreciate that User:Northamerica1000 has taken a more considered approach to tag usage (noted by strike-throughs above), but in my opinion perception is important even when intent is pure. BusterD (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a good example of the real problem. After he tagged it for rescue, three people then found their way there, and said delete, not filtering through the ample search results in Google news as they should have before commenting. I then fortunately find my way there and find significant coverage in four different major news sources, and there plenty more out of there.  The problem isn't with the mass tagging, its with people that follow the tags rushing to make a judgement on an article, without properly looking for sources themselves.   D r e a m Focus  17:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well-said. Instead of dropping the tag and vanishing, following the tag usage instructions would have made it easier for later editors to make improvements and actually perform page rescue. Once again, User:Dream Focus seems to do credit to his assertion that having the rescue tag on the page tends to draw editors more willing to spend a few minutes and apply found sources. I tend to use it as an under-construction tag; Dream Focus sees it as an invitation to potential improvers. By dropping the drive-by tag without following instructions, the tagger is counting on more responsible editors to do the work with little assistance from the tagger. BusterD (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it make any sense to use the WikiProject Deletion sorting approach for article rescues? RJH (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those list include everything in those categories, not just things people think might have a chance of being saved.  D r e a m Focus  19:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I review the DELSORTs where I'm a content expert (or play one on TV...), such that when I see something rescuable that I don't have time to do myself, I can tag them appropriately. I don't have time to go through raw AfD logs looking for things that I might know something about, so I rely on DELSORTing to pre-filter what I've got time to look at.  I see them as complementary processes. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - A summary: I correctly and justly added rescue tags to articles, and received messages on my talk page with false accusations of being disruptive, disrupting Wikipedia, being disruptive to make a point, etc., without any rationale other than user opinion. The rescue tags were added appropriately, are useful, and fair in providing other users with additional options to search for reliable sources. Good faith additions of rescue tags is not disruptive to Wikipedia. Their addition is useful, functional and congruent with fairness and working to build a digital encyclopedia. Adding rescue tags is not "disrespectful" to the template as stated in some remarks above. They provide a more balanced approach for users to check for reliable sources within the article from the rescue template. Conversely, perhaps there should be more restrictions on the AfD template usage, in which articles are often hastily referred to AfD without the required check for source availability as stated in Wikipedia: Articles for deletion. There seems to be some bias inherent by some users to try and limit rescue tagging to promote the deletion of articles. Wikipedia is about building a digital encyclopedia, not unfairly limiting it. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before the deletion discussion is complete. The XfD process usually takes a week, and the tag is in place for less than that. Let the XfD closer remove it when the XfD tag is removed or the item is deleted. In all cases remain civil, and assume good faith that other editors are working to improve Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - After all of this, I just received this message on my talk page, an order to not rescue tag, without any rationale provided. It is not this user's right to order other users in this manner:

" PLEASE STOP

Lest make this very simple - please stop your drive by rescue tagging. Mt king  (edits)  07:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)"

Again, this user doesn't have the right to give orders to other users in this manner. It is inappropriate and not based on policies whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I endorse the suggestion for User:Northamerica1000 to stop the drive by tagging for the reasons I've described above. Please consider stopping. All those who've previously argued with me about this subject can now see the natural extension of their arguments; that a user can recklessly tag and feel no pressure to stop. All of this is my opinion, and only based on the usage instructions of the rescue tag. BusterD (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000, Mtking did not order you to do anything as far as I can see, s/he asked you to stop and used "please". That's a request, not an order, and a polite one to boot. I tend to agree that removal of the tag is not appropriate, but I also tend to agree that tagging large numbers of articles in a short time can be considered disruptive. It appears that you have over 14K edits since June, so it may be that you do not consider tagging so many articles so quickly as unusual, but you are moving rather quickly in comparison to most of us. It seems to me that some of your explanations are a bit terse. Could you slow down the tagging and devote a bit more time to explain each tag you place? 10:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuujinn (talk • contribs)
 * The accusation that the action was "disruptive" colors the rest of the statement, I suggest that the accusation be redacted. Unscintillating (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For those of you who don't regularly participate in those articles tagged for Rescue, why are you complaining about how many articles someone tags for this Wikiproject? No rule violated, and he is harming anything.  If you sincerely believe an article can be saved, tag away. People can then look through the list, and find something that interest them to choose from, this easier than looking through the ridiculously long AFD logs.  Most articles he has tagged are in fact able to be Rescued.  Dragging this conversation out doesn't really make any difference.  You aren't going to convince him, nor is he going to convince you.  So just let it be.   D r e a m Focus  11:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Any issues with the Rescue tags are just the tip of an iceberg, where the iceberg is issues with ill-considered AfD nominations that are not policy based, which is in turn the tip of an even larger iceberg, which is the creation of articles that are not policy based. Unscintillating (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against article deletion
This section has been in there for awhile now. I just reverted an attempt to remove it. Will the active members of this Wikiproject give your opinions please. Should this section stay or go? Article_Rescue_Squadron  D r e a m Focus  09:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed it again. It was introduced on 15 September 2011, so I just revert to the status quo version. And everyone can give their opinion, whether they are active members, inactive members, or not members at all. If you want to have a closed discussion among members, take this off-wiki. Fram (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course anyone can give their opinions. But someone who actually participates in the Wikiproject is someone whose opinions I like to hear, while those who only seem to show up to argue with people, I really couldn't care less about.   D r e a m Focus  09:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(If you want to amend a post after someone replied to it, don't just removed the relevant portion, but strike it out, or just reply that you may have been mistaken: otherwise you remove the necessary context for my reply. I have now reintroduced your text with strikethrough). Fram (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems very opinionated, is it an essay? It seems to be soapboxing about inclusion-ism and recent activities of the project more like 'activism than a collaborative wikiproject. I said this project was broken last week and everything I am seeing here supports my comment. This project seems to be creating an us and them battlefield position. Save and save at all costs could be this projects current motto. Off2riorob (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't participate is this project all that often, but generally believe it provides a very useful balance in the litany of deletion oriented guidance we have. I find the comment This project seems to be creating an us and them battlefield position interesting when in fact, WP:Articles for deletion is already a defacto battlefield. And in my opinion a battlefield that is heavily skewed in favor of deletion in very subtle ways.  Especially for new and inexperienced editors, WP:ATA and WP:CANVASS are an onerous essays/guidelines that get invoked in so many incongruent ways by those who fight for deletion. Deletion may improve the quality of the encyclopedia but its also drives editors away when its done without any regard to the editors involved.  Interesting enough, no where in the Deletion project is there guidance to encourage and mentor new and experienced editors when their work falls prey to a deletion attempt.  The same cannot be said for the ARS project.  Because I think ARS is a useful counter to ill-convieved deletion attempts, I think the section should stay.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are giving arguments why the ARS should exist. I can't see an argument addressing the section and its actual contents though. What is the relevance of "internet censorship ratings"? Why is lack of notability suddenly not sufficient as a reason for deletion, when the rest of the ARS page takes a completely different position? Why are arguments about what "deletionists" may do (where the exact same thing can be said about "inclusionists" of course) relevant? I thought this wasn't meant to be an inclusionist vs. deletionist page, but a page to coordinate the efforts to prevent articles on notable subjects to be deleted. The rest of the ARS page does a decent job addressing this (although other recent edits have not really improved this), but the section under discussion addresses completely different and sometimes contradictory issues. Fram (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need notability to have an article. Wikipedia is not a series of absolute rules WP:BUREAUCRACY and you can ignore all notability guidelines and Ignore All Rules if it improves the encyclopedia.  Its important to remind people to think about the situation, and not just spout guidelines alone.  And the picture does a great job.  Deleting articles because you don't like something, which is the most common reason something gets nominated, is the same as trying to censor information others have access to.   D r e a m Focus  11:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And indicating how internet censorship is different from country to country is relevant.. how? Or is it just a poisoning the well attempt to equate "deletion" with "censorship"? Because obviously when we nominate an article on an obscure band, or someone's untested and unnoted invention, or whatever else gets routinely nominated, it is because we don't like that band and that invention, and that we want to censor this information. Yeah, you totally got the essence of AfD captured there. Fram (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem at all with the section staying. I would far rather that the project self-identified as inclusionist and organised itself as WikiProject Article Rescue instead of masquerading as some sort of neutral task force (like the GOCE). Last month's move request might have been a bit of a train wreck, but that's plainly where the project is heading. It doesn't make sense for editors who don't identify themselves with the ARS to attempt to steer the project any more. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with thumperwad that the "arguments" seem to be philosophically representative of WP:ARS, few if any of these arguments would work in a AfD discussion. If the section is retained, it should be retitled or rewritten so that new participants do not think these are effective AfD arguments.
 * Also, the internet censorship world map is a bit silly in this context. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The section "Arguments against article deletion"
The section "Arguments against article deletion" summarizes rationales to retain articles that are notable per Wikipedia notability guidelines. I think this section adds additional useful context to this project page, and provides examples to justify article rescue. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It does a good job of indoctrinating naive new editors. It does an extremely poor job of actually presenting compelling arguments to keep specific pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jeebus, every time I come by this page there's a new wall of text. Here's a new map  for the project page arguments dispute, for consideration by members of the ARS.--Milowent • talkblp-r  19:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bah Okip, I looked up this nice representive image of what a deletionist looks like in real life when you reinserted the section, only to edit conflict with you trimming it and turning it into something boring. Pity, it would have been an improvement to the page. Yoenit (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't playful banter with editors who attacked me not three months ago. That was you right? In that edit war? Okip  22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh, edit war? I have no idea what you are talking about. Yoenit (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record you are confusing me with user:Yaksar. I don't think we have any prior interactions before, but you are not really leaving a good first impression this way. Yoenit (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that someone who endorses this disputed section make into an essay & keep it in their own userspace? It can be made findable by adding it to Category:User essays, & no one need to edit war over its contents. -- llywrch (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

trimmed the section
Okay, this section has promise, so Dream was right to revert it. It needs a lot of work, so my dear Fram was right to delete it.

I really don't like being here anymore, so I won't write much.

Here is what I took out: leaving the strongest points.

the reason is:
 * 1) I feel we should never use the world "deletionists", which has a lot of emotional baggage attached to it. Instead we should use the term "editors who delete other editors good faith contributions". It has a better feel.
 * 2) A lot of the argument connections were really weak, especially the censorship one.
 * 3) Quoting Jim seems misleading now. Jim Wales is a someone who has vigourlously supported the deletion of "other editors good faith contributions". His early comments are no reflection on his hardend views now.
 * 4) Wikipedia studies on inclusionism and deletionism would help bolster and strengthen the remaining stongest points. I have dozens which I have found over the years but I wont bother adding them. I was also thinking of the highly controversial veteran editors posing as new editors study done here, but that is probably too controversial.

So whoever wrote this, good job, some really strong points which are retained here. Okip  22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see this rewrite that toned down some of the hyperbole. (Most deletion isn't censorship and Wikipedia is not censored.) Quick question about this one: "Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of notability can reduce the total information of Wikipedia." If the general notability guideline = notability = well-sourced, isn't it an oxymoron to suggest that we routinely delete well-sourced articles for not being sourced well? I don't understand what you mean here at all. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's basically a nod to the general inclusionist rejection of WP:NOT: If someone has taken the time to contribute a set of horse racing odds, or a nice recipe, or a theory on why time is really cubic and each day consists of four simultaneous 24-hour periods offset by 90 degrees and added secondary references to make it look like an article, we'd be fools to delete it and reduce the overall content level of the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So should the statement read: "Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of what Wikipedia is not..."? I'm not trying to agree with the sentence, but it should at least make sense. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It should, yes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for Rescue cleanup template
I put up a first cut of what I suggested above, Template:Rescue_cleanup. The workflow would be, I think: I've not done a template before, but I'll willing to hack through this if it seems a good notion. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After an article is tagged for rescue and kept, this template is placed on the article
 * We'd have a cat here for collecting the articles that need additional work.
 * Once any references brought up in AFD are in the article properly, and any concerns brought up in AFD addressed, the template would be removed.
 * Any additional improvement needed could be addressed by other projects, such as WP:GOCE, but we should tag the article accordingly.


 * I support the notion, but I'd really strongly prefer for this to be a talk page template. We should endeavour to keep wikiprocess out of articles as much as possible. If an article still has flaws after an AfD then we already have a whole host of specific articlespace tags which can be used to flag the remaining problems. (Of course none of this would matter if ARS members hadn't developed this curious habit of adding references to AfDs and not articles anyway, but that's for another day.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no objection whatsoever to having the template on the talk page. Any other comments? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chris's concern. I was envisioning something much more like the MilHist project's B-class checklist when I first read your suggestion, not another pagespace tag (certainly not a pagespace tag which calls attention to the ARS, which has traditionally worked like stagehands in black, getting stuff done without calling overmuch attention to itself). In my mind, suggesting specific thresholds of improvement on pagetalk gives an editor more specific direction. BusterD (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Against this. If no one saw the need to bother putting the references into the article previously, than they aren't going to now because of that tag.  Just look for any article tagged with "References needed" already if you feel like referencing something.  Instead of placing the tag, you can just as easily copy and paste references over to the talk page for others to use.   D r e a m Focus  11:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need for a post-rescue specific cleanup tag vs. the bevy of cleanup/improve article tags that already exist, to be honest. Whether an article is tagged rescue during an AfD is somewhat unpredictable, and some things get tagged for rescue that need little improvement, and others get improved sufficiently during the AfD that the tag is not necessary.  Also, creating a special tag adds to the incorrect notion that only ARS improves articles, when actually everyone should be doing so!--Milowent • talkblp-r  12:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dreamfocus and Milowent, thank you for the feedback. I agree completely that many times an article is cleaned up during AFD, and in those cases, no followup would be required, hence no tag. Would you be more supportive of BusterD's suggestion? Would it be better to come up with something more specific? I think the worst case are those times refs get into the AFD discussion and don't make it into the article, and I think capturing those instances one way or another would be useful. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think such a template would be useful and could be added to articles that are not improved when there are citations available comments/links in an afd - it would be really helpful imo it would direct users to the sources found. I don't think it needs to mention anyone (the rescue squadron are not specifically responsible for improvement, that issue is only as I mentioned - adding a rescue template and not improving the article demeans the templates value imo - unless for rescue we read, kept from deletion? and not improved? )
 * - this article has recently been kept at AFD, during which search results and presented reliable externals that assert notability were presented, please see the discussion to assist in improving this article - Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess a tag alerting a potential editor to the existence of sources in the AfD would not be a bad idea. I'm generally against tag-creep, but such a tag would serve a purpose not currently served by any existing tag.--Milowent • talkblp-r  17:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

uBLP Backlog Eliminated!!

 * I am pleased to report that as of 28 September 2011 at 16:54 UST, the backlog of unreferenced biographies of living persons (uBLPs) has been eliminated. See Unreferenced BLP Rescue.  I started that project as a reaction to the BLP deletion spree in January 2010, which had caused us all grave concerns at ARS.  Of course the work of improving BLPs and all articles is never done, but the boogeyman of the uBLP backlog is no more!--Milowent • talkblp-r  17:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * - Fantastic contribution to the project - well done to you Milowent, and to all that helped. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah. I kept forgetting about that.  I did a small number of them now and again.  Probably should've had a note somewhere on the main list to remind people.  Oh well.   D r e a m Focus  17:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

126 articles tagged
I don't recall seeing more than a dozen articles tagged at any one time. Why are there 126 articles tagged right now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that the contributor above is referring to articles tagged with the Rescue template. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We have an active new user filled with energy and hoping to make a real difference in our world. Most of those tagged that I've seen so far seem saveable, so no complaints here.   D r e a m Focus  04:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not something I'm found to say often, but Dream Focus is right here. I've had a scan over a random selection of current rescue targets and they all seem to be within the boundaries of the project (articles with potential which haven't done enough to show it). Whether ARS has enough manpower to make a difference to 127 articles given that they're on a seven-day timer is another matter of course. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In contrast, 658 articles tagged for deletion
Please note that in contrast to the quantification provided above, as of the time of this comment, there are currently 658 articles tagged that are listed for deletion, per the category page: Category:Articles for deletion. Please be sure to scroll down to the "Pages in category "Articles for deletion"" section for the quantification. Therefore, why are 658 articles tagged for deletion right now? Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Obviously, the number of articles currently at AfD is the upper bound for the number of articles that could be flagged for rescue. And ~500 articles is a tiny proportion of our total article count. There is nothing inherently wrong with questioning whether a given subject meets our notability requirements, and if things are working as they should (which most people broadly agree they are) then those subjects which are notable should end up with their articles kept. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We'd have far less articles at AFD if a few simple rules were enacted: 1. No one may nominate an article for deletion if they previously nominated that same article. Keep trying until you get the results you want, is wrong, and is obviously gaming the system.  2. If someone has constantly nominated articles for deletion based on bad rational, and keeps stating how much they hate articles of that subject and don't think they belong on Wikipedia, they should not be allowed to keep nominating large numbers of articles regularly.  Need a tool that identifies how many times someone has sent something to AFD, and if 90% of the time they end in keep, then look over whether or not to stop them from wasting everyone's time.    D r e a m Focus  11:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 is more workable and more likely to be approved by the community than 2, which would generally be dealt with by an ANI or WQA discussion. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with 1 is that it is easy to circumvent by using a sock. Thus forbidding renominations will not stop the bad faith nominations from occuring, it will just make them harder to recognize. I think a better solution would be to call more attention to renominations in general: Make the AFD log display the full AFD name, eg Simon Fisher-Becker (2nd nomination), rather than just Simon Fisher-Becker. Secondly, make a bot auto add the old AFD box if it is missing. I am also afraid Dreamfocus is overestimating the effect his rules would have if implemented. Right now we have some 30 ongoing renominations (less than 5%), of which the majority will have a new nominator. Nominators with 90% keep record are also pretty rare and as far as I know already dealt with through ANI. Yoenit (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Also, if the circumstances have changed or the previous discussion was no consensus why shouldn't any editor be able to renominate the article for deletion. The whole discussion is based on a ridiculous argument - that it is inherantly wrong to delete stuff. Seriously, that's wrong on so many levels it turns this whole discussion is a massive waste of time that could otherwise be used productively. Spartaz Humbug! 17:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with many of the points User:Dream Focus makes above, though I acknowledge we often disagree here. My concern about the recent tagging run is that if so many articles are tagged, how can an ordinary editor make informed choices about which articles to improve? My second concern is that the tagger is bullying by WP:TALKINGSOFASTNOBODYCANHEARYOU. BusterD (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 126 is not an especially large number of articles. It is similar to the number of articles that one gets in a day at PROD or AFD.  I routinely patrol both of these.  There is not usually time to investigate every case and so you look down the list for a topic which seems interesting or familiar.  This process encourages editors to attend discussions in which they will be able to make most difference.  If any editor feels overwhelmed by this then they must just learn to understand that Wikipedia is too large for any one editor to keep with everything.  Warden (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When it comes down to it, it's up to ARS to ensure that their own workload is kept sensible. If too many articles are tagged articles which need the productive work ARS provides won't get fixed, simple as that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is demeaning to the reputation of the template when it is added to many articles where no improvement is attempted. This is compounded when an article is templated and not improved but three regular rescue members have attended to the AFD discussion and are the voter weight that has created a keep consensus. I would think the project would want users to see the template and think, great that article needs saving, thanks be the rescue squadron are on the job and not to have users see the template and think, oh noes more inclusionist activism and another rubbish primary cited low notable article kept. Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Off2riorob, which article are you talking about? Let's discuss a real example instead of a hypothetical one. In regard to the tagger, I think there are some problems there in general, but I'm personally not sure how to address those. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been looking over a fair few and this clearly does happen. I am logging off now but you really don't see it happening I will present some later. I think from the comments here some people don't see this as a problem - many get tagged, some get improved - some don't - some get kept some don't. Seems to be the general view of rescue members -  As for the tagger he has now been notified by an administrator that there are issues with his cut and copy repeat style supports comment and that in future they will be ignored and uncounted. See you all later, regards. -  Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No rush, and I won't argue that such things don't happen. But we've been dancing around these issues for over a year now, and I think getting down to actual cases would be more useful at this point. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do they say Keep BEFORE someone finds and mentions some reliable sources? I always look for sources no matter what, and only say Keep if I find them.  Once someone finds them, no sense to keep looking for additional ones, just move on to those AFD that still need help in searching.   D r e a m Focus  17:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, Dream Focus, but how often do you !vote Delete in an AFD? I think one thing that Off2riorob is reacting to is that sometimes an article is kept, but the references that were found to support the keep rationale do not make it into the article. Now, I would not argue that we need to make that cleanup and improvement phase after an AFD a requirement for use of the template, but I do think that our making that good faith effort as a group to get that followup done would go a long way toward quieting some of the unrest, does that make sense? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have voted delete on numerous occasions when I am certain it is warranted(See User:Dream_Focus/AfD_stats which shows me saying delete 2.3% of the time). If not absolutely certain, I say nothing, or just post a question like I did recently at Articles_for_deletion/Mohammad_Ala.  I don't just spam keep or delete, but actually look at the information provided, and think things through.  And you aren't going to "quiet the unrest" since its mostly from people who are upset at the ARS for getting articles kept they are trying to delete.   D r e a m Focus  17:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, but let's not ascribe our notion as to others' motives if we can avoid it. So using you as an example (and feel free to us me as an example, too, it is not my intent to pick on anyone in particular!), roughly 98% of the time you !vote keep. Now, all things being equal (knowing full well that they are not, really), one might assume that this is because you feel that 98% of AFD nominations are bad or inappropriate. And that would be fine, I think--at least I'm not aware of any policy against having that point of view--but it would put you in the hard-core inclusionist camp, and some would argue that to invite you to an AFD discussion would equivalent to canvassing for a keep. But if you brought solid references to the table 98% of the time, or you or others having found references, you put them into the article during or after the AFD 100% of the time, anyone arguing for a simple case of canvassing would just look silly. The point being, if ARS members did a better job at followup, there would be less to criticize and the criticisms would look pretty silly. I hope that makes some sense.
 * Now, on the other hand, I think suggesting that ARS members have a some particular responsibility to improve flagged articles goes too far, since we're volunteers, and everyone should contribute constructive as best they can--we don't put that kind of pressure on the GOCE, for example, when an article is tagged for copy edits, or the people marking unreferenced BLPs. But I do think we ought to be able to find a way to put more focus on followup and improve the project that way. One thing I've been mulling over would be an ARS cleanup template--the idea would be once an article is tagged for rescue and kept, we'd put an ARS cleanup template on the article (or it's talk page). That would give us a way to monitor the degree of followup on tagged articles, and if cleanup gets behind, we could have a drive to catch up. Does that seem worth pursuing? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This last suggestion is intriguing. Over time, I've grown to accept User:Dream Focus and I view this stuff differently. And most recently I've embraced those differences, realizing that a strong consistent viewpoint opposed to mine can shine a light on issues and content I would otherwise disregard. My experience is that most of the hard-core ARS members like DF lead with sources and improvement; the tag is merely a means toward that end. That said, a template like the one described above would help us measure improvement, not argue about it. Can you illustrate more what you're suggesting? BusterD (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hows this for something that keeps popping up recently. I find a reliable source proving something is notable, clicking through the results of the Google news archive until I found one of them which was a reliable source with significant coverage, and mention it in my keep argument.  The nominator then admits its notable, but tries to bargain that he'll withdraw his nomination if its added to the article.  I explain that's now how things work, that if you want something added to it, you have to do it yourself.  Sometimes I do add things, such as my recent save at ArcSoft ShowBiz, sometimes I don't see any reason to do so.  The article's subject is proven notable, and that's what the AFD is all about, not trying our best to win people over who want a certain thing, but instead just finding the evidence and putting it out there.   D r e a m Focus  02:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right about what AFD is about, but your first example is, I think, the kind of interaction we should try to avoid, while the latter is the kind of interaction we want. I think it's just as easy to plunk the reference in, raw if you're in a hurry, in the article itself and point it out in the AFD discussion as it is to put it in the AFD discussion directly, and doing the former moves the article forward, which is our overall goal. People do get frustrated--sometimes I get peeved at raw URL references being used instead of cite templates. BusterD is spot on in that we have different approaches and styles, but we'll improve as a project the more we can accommodate the needs of the project overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuujinn (talk • contribs) 13:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I added a section titled "Articles currently tagged for deletion" with a pull-down menu underneath the articles tagged for rescue section, which provides contrast and another resource for interested people. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

126 articles tagged (consider this)

 * In project management after a project has ended, people often review the events to see what can be learned.

I was super busy for the last couple of weeks, so I saw the hubbub come and go, and didn't have time to really comment, but what do you think the outcome was from the recent spree of rescue tagging? Did more articles get saved? Did it improve the reputation of the Article Rescue Squadron? What caused those who normally don't tag things to do so now, and did those editors participate in Rescue beyond just dropping the tag in? In other words, what lessons can be learned from this about how ARS should handle things? -- Avanu (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lot of those articles were saved. Most of the ones I had time to go through were savable.  And why would anyone care about the reputation of the ARS?  Hopefully most aren't so shallow as to be obsessed with what others think about them.  Get a self esteem building class if you have a problem with that.  The only thing to be learned, by those who didn't already know this, is that a lot of decent articles are sent to AFD constantly, and only if enough people notice and participate can they be saved.   D r e a m Focus  17:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking a position of not giving a fuck about how your perceived is imo detrimental to the rescue project, as an aggressive keep keep at all costs fuck you mentality is portrayed and perceived the result will imo be a backlash from the community resisting what may be seen as a free speecher position that others may see as detrimental to the projects aims and ambitions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. Things are closed based on rules, not what you think about the people commenting.   D r e a m Focus  01:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with User:Off2riorob that User:Dream Focus's initial response was poorly considered and doesn't at all address the valid concern raised, re: project management principles. BusterD (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

possible rescue
Hi, this guy seems nice and is editing his own article - I sent it to AFD, is there any chance it can be rescued? Is he independently wikipedia notable? My investigations led me to consider him not so. - Can Emed ? Original BLPN thread is Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard - Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, thanks for notifying us of this one. As Unreferenced BLP Rescue did its work, I noticed that is one of the most common categories of self-created BLPs, and showing notability is often quite difficult -- because sourcing simply doesn't exist.  I feel bad for these folks, they don't realize wikipedia routinely deletes such articles (though they might find a few that persist, and they certainly don't recognize that the ones that do exist have sources in newspapers etc to meet the wikipedia rules).   For Can, we have absolutely no google news hits (not even bare mentions), which is always the first bad sign.  Then, since he is turkish, I know I need to search the the archives of the top turkish newspapers (because they won't come up in Google).  There is one 2002 bare mention of Emed participating in a young artists show  in Hürriyet.  This is confirmed by the single bare mention of him in the 2003 "Turkish Art Yearbook" which is his only Google book hit .  Not looking good.--Milowent • talkblp-r  11:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, thanks for looking Milowent. I agree with you about the additional issues when articles are self-created. If anyone is either Turkish or interested in up and coming artists you may be able to find some obscure references to him, otherwise he will have to come back when he gets a bit more independent coverage. Regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Source searches
I have revised the Source searches section on the Project page by adding Wikipedia links and either Fee or Free to the entries, in two columns. NewsLibrary and Library of Congress Authorities do not have Wikipedia articles. I added The Political Graveyard and the Library of Congress Authorities because I find them to be useful. Perhaps an arrangement with the Free entries are before the Fee entries would be better, and maybe it should be changed to a single column format. There may be other sources to add, but this is a good start.

Source searches

 * Google News Google News Free
 * Google Book Search Google Books Free
 * Google Scholar Google Scholar Free
 * NewsLibrary.com NewsLibrary Fee
 * FindArticles.com FindArticles Fee
 * World Cat WorldCat Free
 * Wikipedia Reference Search by the WRS project Free
 * Library of Congress Authorities Library of Congress Authorities Free
 * Political Graveyard The Political Graveyard Free
 * JSTOR JSTOR Fee

More comments

 * Maybe Library of Congress Authorities could be added to Library of Congress with a redirect. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Silver  seren C 17:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made an article on NewsLibrary, so that's one down. Silver  seren C 17:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the NewsLibrary article. Is Library of Congress Authorities, a redirect to LoC, perhaps is the same as Library of Congress Subject Headings?--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is "rescue" not a template on the Template Messages?
Maybe I am missing something, I'm kinda new here. I am also interested in a "rescuscitate" template for deleted articles, and/or when "speedy delete" is applied to articles. Any known bars to developing that? Sngourd (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea on the first, but the second and third would be problematic, as you would be creating either bluelinks without any actual content (oif you put the templates on the deleted article page), or talk pages without an article (if you put the templates on the talk page of the deleted article): both are speedy deletable. If there are articles which have been deleted but where you believe that the subject warrants an article, either write it, or go to Requested articles. There are still hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of subjects that could reasonably have an article, so adding templates to all these pages seems useless and only eliminates redlinks while removing these pages from the "newpages" list (a good method of catching vandalism, spam, and so on). In general, I don't see a real benefit and some drawbacks. Fram (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Rescue Tom Segalstad, a marginally-notable geologist and climate-change skeptic?
Tom Segalstad was recently nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Tom Segalstad. Segalstad, a a Norwegian geologist, is a museum curator who's done some geological research, is moderately well-known in his profession, and is best known outside his profession as a climate-change skeptic. His AfD was triggered by a cleanup of a list article on climate skeptics here, without any real attempt to fix the article first. I agree that Segalstad isn't highly notable, but I and other editors have argued that he meets our minimum notability guidelines, though perhaps not exceeding them by much. I don't see any gain from deleting such an article -- see Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Help? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I already !voted keep there, but my impression is that it may be possible to flesh out the article to prove its notable. But no one wants to try, I guess. Right now, people want to ignore the fact that wrong-headed climate-change deniers can indeed be notable.  Is the Flat Earth Society next to go?!--Milowent • hasspoken  01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to User:Silver seren, who has fixed up the article and added a number of good-quality cites of the subject. His good work will likely save the artice from deletion. Thank you, Silver seren! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed RfC
A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk)
 * Note: This discussion is specifically titled, "Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles." Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, your edit here led me to re-read the Bugzilla Request. It's such a perfect example of how WP:CONSENSUS is a joke and should, decidedly, not be one of the Pillars, since the Foundation doesn't follow it. It really seems like a "laughing all the way to the bank" scenario in regards to us volunteers and our opinions. Silver  seren C 01:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not the customers, Silver Seren. The Foundation's customers are its donors--they give it money.  The editors are volunteer labor, the 'pedia itself is the inventory.  I've seen lots of people in volunteer organizations get confused about who they work for and who the customers are. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes it worse though. We're the volunteer labor that is making what is essentially the product. Without us, there would be no Wikipedia at all. The point of this proposal was to improve the quality of Wikipedia and many of us agreed on that. As was stated by Snottywong in the request, we have data backing up how new pages made by new accounts are of the same unnotable quality as it would be if we still allowed IPs to make new pages. The five developers that commented in the request stated that they have data saying that enacting the proposal would be bad (for someone), but couldn't produce that data. They pointed to a certain Signpost, however that was not dealing with anything related to the subject at hand. There has still been no real reason given for why the community-decided trial in regards to this proposal was not enacted, beyond that the five developers that responded didn't like it. Silver  seren C 03:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Check out my WP:ACE2011 questions page re: problems facing Wikipedia, specifically Sue's presentation to WMUK on the topic. The barrier to entry is a big deal, and I see why they wouldn't want to move in that direction. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And I remember when you used to call me just Silver. I think I liked you better before you joined the "organization". :( Silver  seren C 03:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't remember who I've called what over the years. I tend to initialize things that lend themselves to it, but "SS" isn't necessarily a good set of initials to hang on someone. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

dating the articles listed on the Rescue page
It'd help to know when the AFD for something is scheduled to end. Be able to get to those articles first. I asked on the bot request page for someone to do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Article_Rescue_Squadron_could_use_an_AFD_close_date_on_their_list_of_articles_that_need_help  D r e a m Focus  18:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 18:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed you didn't get a response at WP:BOTREQ. I might be able to help you out with this, if you're ok with "cohorting with the enemy".  Let me know.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> converse 21:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Snotty, you are a super-wiz with tools and such, I would be glad if you could help us with this.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 22:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 9 <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> converse 17:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks quite nice. Plus, we'll be able to see success rates of rescue-tagged articles, even by nominator, I suppose.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  21:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The tentative plan is to remove closed articles from the table at a certain point, to prevent it from getting enormous. Currently, if there are more than 50 entries in the table, it will just remove closed articles until it gets down to 50 (but if there are more than 50 tagged articles, then the table will be bigger than 50 entries).  That number could be increased if necessary/desired.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> spill the beans 22:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Can you also make it show whenever someone tries to remove the Rescue tag before the AFD closes?  Or show when something is nominated by the same editor who nominated it previously, but didn't get the results they wanted, so decided to keep trying?   D r e a m Focus  23:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It will do the former (it will display the status of the page as "Untagged"), but the latter is not quite relevant to the task, and it's not easy for an automated process to sort out when someone is nominating an article for deletion in bad faith. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> chat 14:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See Article Rescue Squadron/Article list. In trial currently.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> spout 18:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks really great, I think this is data than many people can use well. (note minor quirk at the moment: List of classic female blues singers is listed as "misplaced", but AfD is still pending).--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 06:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Those AfD's were initially listed incorrectly, they were linking to the . I pointed them to the  but the bot isn't updating correctly.  Should be fixed soon.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> prattle 14:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, seems to be working and the BRFA has been approved. Let me know if you spot any problems or think it needs to be changed in some way.  I'm not watching this page, so you might get a quicker response on my talk page.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#5a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> verbalize 15:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to User:Snottywong for this exceptional work! A W E S O M E ! Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, second that emotion. Novickas (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Portal deprecation discussion occurring
There's a discussion occurring regarding a proposal to deprecate portals on Wikipedia, occurring here: Wikipedia talk: Portal – Purpose of the Portal space. Please feel free to comment regarding this proposal there. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

New discussion – Increasing portal visibility on Wikipedia

 * I've started a new discussion with a specific focus upon increasing portal visibility in Wikipedia on the same discussion page here: Wikipedia talk: Portal - Ideas to increase portal visibility. — Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent articles - Declined proposal for deletion
I've noticed that many articles that are actually or may actually be notable topics are being proposed for deletion (Prodded) lately. Here are some articles I've worked to improve, which were previously proposed for deletion. Feel free to improve them more.


 * New Zealand Liberal Party (2008)
 * Bachelor's Day
 * Jabiru airport
 * MOS (operating system)
 * Action Force (Teletoon)
 * Big Bertha (golf club)
 * Response ZT
 * Free Studio
 * .35 Newton
 * Jason Bailey (CEO)
 * List of electronic literature authors, critics, and works
 * Database Testing
 * United Airlines Cheyenne Test Crash


 * Godzilla Squad
 * The Centaurus
 * Religious paranoia
 * Big Brother 2012 (Sweden)
 * Hydrogen piping
 * Spirits ratings
 * 1200 in Ireland
 * School of Homeopathy
 * Wisconsin Highway 61
 * Brilliant 10 diamond (originally tiled "The most brilliant diamond in the world")
 * Parala Maharaja Engineering College, Berhampur
 * Treehouse Arts Ensemble
 * Massachusetts Animal Rights Coalition


 * List of magazines in Hungary
 * International Boxing Research Organization
 * List of programs broadcast by TB Network
 * M. Seligman & Co.
 * City Chase
 * Coupons.com
 * Coupon Mountain
 * Children's Philanthropy Center
 * Raines International
 * List of major hotels in Busan
 * Tyler Foundation
 * Kashless.org
 * Glossary of machine vision
 * Here's all the Prod listings: Category: All articles proposed for deletion
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Rescue Matta (chief), a fairly notable 7th century ruler
Matta (chief), formerly known as Matta,sindh, was recently listed for deletion. There are sources available on the internet that discuss Matta, a 7th century warlord, politician, and (not very adept) schemer. He is notable enough, and I think that he merits his own article. I did a little cleanup on the page, and hope that it can stay on Wikipedia. Is there any way to ensure that the article is not deleted?  DCI talk 01:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This article was kept in Wikipedia, per the AfD for this article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Drei Ros
This article is currently at AfD and has plenty of references provided. There's plenty of advertorial language and a WP:COI issue but salvageable content. I'm not comfortable placing an ARS template unless I plan on helping with the article and I don't know that I have time to at the moment so I thought I would mention it here.  Ol Yeller21 <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  16:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This article was deleted from Wikipedia, per the AfD for this article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ryan Shamrock (fighter)

 * Not seeing much consensus for the mass delete close of this from a few weeks ago. Did anyone take a look at this discussion at the time?  Don't know if any of these subjects are worth saving even if the close seems questionable.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  19:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This article was deleted from Wikipedia, per the AfD for this article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Circball
Hello: I read the ARS article about how "Articles that may be written in poor form, that lack references or need improvement, but whose topics are backed by reliable sources are worthy of existence in Wikipedia, per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. An article being in a poor state is not a sufficient reason for deletion.". I think the Circball article does need improvement rather than outright deletion. Even one of the editors conceded that there may be "possible reliable sourcing" for the article. I have provided such source(s) and I'm also in contact with a major media company that has an article on Circball but that it is not accessible yet in the internet for convenient source linking. Please help with the AfD discussions if Circball were to be kept or not. Thanks.Circball (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This article was deleted from Wikipedia, per the AfD for this article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

WCKS (college radio) rescue
This is to note that this article has been tagged for rescue.

According to the student newspaper at GVSU, the student-run station had an FM FCC license in the late 1980's, but lost it in the early 1990s (probably before 1992) due to using bad language on the air. They applied again in 2008.

I've found that the call letters of the older station are WSRX, and I've added two sources at Kevin Matthews (radio personality)‎. These articles indicate that WSRX is at least as old as 1978.

Things that would be useful:
 * Find the Michigan FCC license for WSRX. The WSRX article states that the older station had a broadcast power of 10 watts and was licensed to the Allendale Charter Township, Michigan.
 * If it is true that the FCC pulled the license, that is an interesting story that would have attracted attention.
 * Find the FCC application for the FM station in 2008. The Green Valley Lanthorn has two articles describing the attempt, but two of us have tried without success to find the application.  The app might not be from Allendale, and it is probably not made by the school. There is at least one GVSU antenna at coopersville.  Here is a list of local communities I find on the Google map of the area: coopersville, jablonski, hudsonville, eastmanville, borculo, riverview, tallmadge, robinson, walker, polkton, lamont, wyoming, creston, auburn hills, northview, millbrok, kentwood, grand rapids.

Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * From what we have repeatedly told Unscintillating at the WCKS AfD is as follows:


 * That there isn't a license for WSRX anymore, it is now WGVU-FM, a NPR affiliate. The current WSRX is a completely unrelated religious station in Naples, Florida.
 * There isn't any backing information to say that the WSRX programming was the same as the current "WCKS".
 * Even if there was "WCKS" programming on the previous WSRX, that notability would carry over for WGVU-FM not "WCKS".
 * There have been zero applications for an radio or TV station owned by Grand Valley State University or in the Allendale, Michigan area (I went out 25 miles).
 * There has never been an application ever in the Allendale area that was cancelled, dismissed, expired or otherwise not acted upon in the Federal Communications Commission database by any entity. (Note: the FCC is the official federal agency in the US for all licensed radio and television stations).
 * "WCKS" does not meet the general notability guideline or the Broadcast Media notability guidelines.
 * "WCKS" does not meet WP:CORP or WP:ORG guidelines either.
 * A proposal to merge the "WCKS" page to the Grand Valley State University page has made, but not yet acted upon.


 * At present, there is no possible way for the article to be saved under the rules (WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:V, WP:BROADCAST, among others) of Wikipedia.
 * On top of this, Unscintillating has engaged in edit-warring over dubious added to the WCKS AfD page. Along with his increasingly overly bureaucratic posts and his wikilawyering, a serious case of "I Didn't Hear That"...and what now appears to be forum shopping, I don't think he is the best person to be discussing this. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 05:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I found that the student-run WSRX was on the air from 1974 to 1982. Internet chatter says that the college (GVSC that became GVSU) took over the student-run station at that time to make a station with NPR programming.  There are maybe three Ghits that WCKS was at 1610 AM.  The origins of WCKS remain unknown, and I've found nothing to confirm that there was a student-run FM station in the early 1990s that got its license pulled.  I found one more source and added it to the article, it is a 2011 article from MSU, and possibly also a student newspaper.  It confirms that the station wants a low power FM license.  There are still questions to be resolved, I'm thinking someone could call the advisor to find out what is going on.  Meanwhile, there was a major shift at the AfD today, it appears that the edit history and the redirect have been saved from deletion, as consensus is now centered on a merge to GVSU.  The ARS should list this as a successful rescue.  Thanks again, Unscintillating (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WSRX is now WGVU-FM...not "WCKS". The notability of the previous WSRX goes to WGVU-FM, not "WCKS".  I searched for "Grand Valley State College" in my search fields at the FCC database, nothing came up.  "Internet chatter" isn't consider a third-party reliable source.  There was never a low-power application or even a standard FM application for "Grand Valley State College" or Grand Valley State University, there was neither licensed to Allendale, Michigan.  The only station that has ever been licensed to Allendale, Michigan is the current WGVU-FM.  The "news articles" you have found do not confirm anything because there was never a license in the FCC database to be had.  No license up for grabs, source is wrong.  Calling anyone would be a waste of time as anything that they told you would fall under original research rules and would be removed from the page as such.  Oh and the "major shift", that's me being kind.  It's not a "win" or a "successful rescue" (as I am not a WP:RESCUE member), it is just me being nice.  So far, no one has acted on it and so the AfD continues and if the AfD is closed before it is acted upon, tough luck. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 10:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Article deleted on 12 December 2011
WCKS (college radio) was deleted from Wikipedia on 12 December 2011. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Improving AFD debates
I have been concerned for some time that the quality of AFD discussions hasn't kept pace with a clearer enforcement of our inclusion standards and this leads to a lot of unnecessary relists and will result, as participation continues to decline, in the process becoming even more arbitrary and confusing. That's if AFD doesn't end up breaking from a lack of policy based contributions. My view is that we need to improve understanding of what is or is not a policy based vote to improve the quality of debate. This will result in fewer relists, more consistent outcomes and allow the process to continue to work in the future. I'm proposing that AFD regulars who close and relist discussions explain which votes they counted and why and offer direction when they relist to make what's needed clearer. I started (yeah, its awful and needs lots of work) an essay to explain the process as above and would welcome any comments or feedback that anyone has on this. Since I'm going to spam this round the houses WT:AFD or the talk of the essay seem like good locations to hold the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 18:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, Spartaz, I'll take a look.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 19:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Selective canvassing to delete Template:Rescue?
Can someone help me investigate the selective canvassing that User:Northamerica1000 did in contacting editors about Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_13? I see he notified myself, who is a retired editor, and am interested in who else he did and did not canvas. It would be typical but a real irony if the very editor who is attempting to delete Template:Rescue is in fact selective canvassing himself. Okip  23:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No canvassing has occurred whatsoever. User:Okip, you were notified about the TfD discussion because you were a significant contributor to the template, per the revision history of the page. I followed the instructions in part 3 of the instructions for initiating the template discussion. I notified you in good faith. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should be aware of something: the nomination was procedural. Northamerica1000 supports keeping the article and nominated it in response to others suggesting deletion.  I think the TfD should be made aware of this, however, so I'll go tell them.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @239, i.e. 04:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above section header is absolutely FALSE. Per section 3 of the guidelines when nominating a template for deletion/discussion, (Templates for discussion), "it is considered civil to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template." I simply notified a few users who contributed significantly to the template, per the revision history for the page— Located Here. User:Okip was a significant contributor to the template. There was no "canvassing", "selective canvassing", etc., and it is very inappropriate to insinuate such. I followed the instructions. Period. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your lack of an edit summary made it unclear why you selected him. He was the one who thought it a little fishy, not me.  I'm just reporting what he said, since the TfD should make up their own minds.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @250, i.e. 05:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – User:Okip was a significant contributor to the rescue template. This user mistakenly referred to my good faith effort to notify them about the template's discussion as "canvassing". This is very poor, because it typecasts appropriate notification inappropriately, as "canvassing," and the prose in this section's lede is biased toward this false stance. It is considered civil to notify significant contributors to Wikipedia templates about discussions for those templates, per section III in the instructions located at Templates for discussion. This person, unfortunately, assumed bad faith from the start. What a shame, a false assumption and accusation from the start, and ignorant of the actual instructions. Appropriate notification per instructions is not "canvassing", as repeatedly assumed by User:Okip. It was a very poor decision for that individual to even post this comment here. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why a deletionist is joining ARS
I put my username in the member list and I will help out. I am a deletionist, but I notice that most articles that are tagged for rescue are indeed notable. I also notice massive deletionists. There is two types of deletionists in my opinion. Deletionists follows guidelines strictly while massive deletionists follow it so strictly that they completely twist them around in the process. There is someone that I'm dealing with that went from inclusionist to massive deletionist in one day (I will not give the username). I never feel anger towards inclusionists viewpoints on notability because I respect their viewpoints even though I usually debate my point. Massive deletionists, on the other hand, make me so angry. Nominators that don't follow WP:BEFORE also make me angry. I am hoping to help save articles from these two groups. SL93 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I don't think the ARS should be seen as an inclusionist effort, and I dislike that partisans on both sides have tried to portray it as such. Every article that can be made encyclopedic should be kept.  Every article that cannot, but has worthwhile content should be merged appropriately.  Deletion is the correct outcome for stuff that has no value, or causes actual harm, to the encyclopedia. Thus, rescuing encyclopedic content can and should be the obligation of every editor. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ARS isn't an inclusionist cabal. A few people have tried to make it that, especially with the canvassing incident a couple years ago. But I think this RFA speaks for how things have toned down from the peak of the conflict. We need to learn how to communicate with each other better. I've seen both sides inflame the discussion, and I've seen the more "precise" Wikipedians go on a deletion spree to spite the inclusionists, as much as I've seen the more "precise" inclusionists go on a "keep" spree to spite the deletionists. In reality if we follow the general notability guideline and WP:NOT we would agree on 90% of all AFDs. Most people don't want to delete entire topic areas any more than people want to keep entire topic areas (regardless of quality). Shooterwalker (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Shooterwalker - We vote keep as we want to save interesting and useful article, as well as to respect the work of the folks who built them up. Its nothing to do with wanting to "spite" deletionists. Please dont project deletionist mentality onto members of this squad! @SL93, welcome to our Squadron. I only wish you could have joined us in happier times. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I am clearly an inclusionist, sometimes I agree with an AfD and say delete, or say merge, depending on the subject. Sometimes I look at a rescue tagged article and just go on to the next one, because I don't care one way or the other. However, the massive deletionists do make me angry, but having spent a lot of time early in 2011 on a massive deletionist situation, I now avoid getting involved in those situations.  Too much time and too little accomplished. ARS is an important project, and every editor who takes a reasoned, careful approach to an article tagged for rescue should be welcomed here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @FeydHuxtable, I find it odd that's what you gleaned from my comment. Read it again. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood. I have heard so many members calling the group just a bunch of inclusionists. Those comments and others in the ANI topic about ARS members canvassing is odd. I commented that even if it used for a canvassing, AfD is not a head count. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue
Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See also: Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents – Article Rescue Squadron on AfD.
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)