Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 3

Outcomes
Why do you keep making incorrect statements of AFD outcomes like this: ? The result was No Consensus so why did you put it as Keep? Or here, where you changed the results from No Consensus to Keep: and ? Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been doing what I observed in a previous archive template and adding information to the "status" field of archive templates, which appears to refer to the 'status' of the articles after the AfD discussion. There is a separate field in the archive template for "result," where I have been adding what is said by the AfD closer. When there is No Consensus, the status of the article is Keep, even though the result of the discussion is No Consensus. I have figured that this is at least part of why it makes sense to have two separate fields in the archive template, so both the status of the article and the result of the discussion can be clear. Please let me know if you have any further questions and if you do not plan to change the archive templates back to reflect my explanation; I am sorry that you did not wait to discuss this before making the change to the templates again, because I believe there is a logical explanation related to the archive template that explains why there are two separate fields with two separate functions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see there is no such explanation for why there are fields for status and result and I don't see why No Consensus should be stated as Keep if NC was the outcome of the AFD, where is this stated in the guidance? Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find guidance beyond the past precedent of how the template has been used; I also think there is a logic in the plain meaning of "status" as compared to "reason" (I referred to this field incorrectly as 'result' in my previous comment). The 'reason' field includes the outcome of the AfD, which might be 'speedy keep,' 'keep,' or 'no consensus,' which all result in an article status of 'keep' after the AfD. There are two fields in the template, and 'status' displays as a grey bar, allowing for a fast review, while the 'reason' field displays the details from the closer. I am trying to help the page be readable and consistent; the plain meaning of the fields and the way they have been used is why I filled them in like I did. I hope this clarifies things and that we can agree that the status fields should display the status of the article after the AfD. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pinging because they are recent and regular participants at ARS, and maybe we can develop a consensus about how to proceed with the "status" field in the archive template. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't a problem IMO. Keep up the good work!  WP:Don't feed the trolls.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I was just working out how to ping you, having discovered that your username doesn't ping in the usual way. Beccaynr (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Being as new as I am to ARS, I am trying to figure out whether I have been using the "status" field in the archive template in the way it is designed, when I use it to indicate the status of the article after the AfD, and then use the "reason" field to include information from the closer. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The template serves no purpose other than a visual aid when viewing the page. I've seen it done both ways. Do as you please. Could even say "Keep (no-consensus)" to cover all bases.  --  Green  C  22:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you - my preference is to keep the 'status' field simple and limited to the article status after the AFD, whether it is Keep, Delete, Merge, or Redirect, and then have the 'reason' field highlight whether it was speedy keep, procedural keep, keep, no consensus, delete, etc., and the reasoning from the closer. I have been trying to perform a housekeeping function on the page, so I wanted to follow up after being told that I was doing something incorrectly. Beccaynr (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any valid reason for the status field differing from the reason. The argument that keeping the status field simple lacks merit when you're talking about one versus two words. Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea is to indicate the status of the article after the AfD discussion. It's not an argument. 'Status' has a different meaning than 'reason,' so I think it works best to use the 'status' field to indicate the status of the article after the AfD, and the 'reason' field to indicate the details as to why. It is not clear to me why you think it should be otherwise, but please feel free to clarify your reasoning. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because for all other outcomes the status is just the outcome of the AFD, i.e. an abbreviated version of the reason, so there is no logic to No Consensus being any different. Mztourist (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * An abbreviated version of "No Consensus" is "Keep," similar to how an abbreviated version of "Speedy Keep" and "Procedural Keep" is "Keep." It all results in the same outcome for the article. "Merge" and "Redirect" are different, but "Delete" and "Speedy Delete" are the same. This is ARS, and we are keeping track of rescued articles, which also seems to help explain the logic of an archive template field that records whether articles are kept, merged, redirected, or deleted after the AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Abbreviation is misleading, Procedural Keep is not the same as Keep and No Consensus is not the same as Keep, the effect may be that the page is kept but the reasons are very different and that should be abundantly clear. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They are made abundantly clear in the "reason" field. I feel like your concerns are addressed by the way I have filled in the ARS archive templates, because it is not misleading to indicate the status of the article after the AfD, when the reason from the closer is also included. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And I hope this clarifies this issue - I initially posted archive templates that you then changed, and after I changed them back with a brief explanation, you changed them again before we could discuss it. I would like to avoid having this continue to happen. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, as a follow up, I just added an archive template that seems to be a clear "no consensus" status, because the reason left by the closer indicates that discussion is ongoing about whether to keep a standalone page or merge it, even though there is a consensus to not delete. I think that given this example, the 'No Consensus' status should be used when it helps alert readers to instances when discussion is ongoing, after the AfD closes. My concern is that if 'No Consensus' is used for both open and closed discussions, it could dilute the helpfulness of the field. Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The summary should only be used when the AFD has closed, so there should be no "open discussions". As with all other results, No Consensus should be clearly stated, not changed to Keep. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not linking to the Native Plants Journal entry to make it easier to see what I was referring to. This is an example of where the "No Consensus" status field indicates a true "No Consensus" status, and there is more current work for ARS because a discussion is continuing to occur, as noted by the closer in their reason. Due to this example, I believe that my original interpretation of marking closed discussions as "Keep" when the article is kept after a 'No Consensus' AfD is more clearly an important distinction to make to help support the work of ARS. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I keep saying, No Consensus is not Keep. If the AFD result is No Consensus that should be shown as status with the reason set out. Mztourist (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the issue is what best supports the work of ARS, and I have explained my reasoning and analysis in detail to support my conclusion. Beccaynr (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

See my comment above. A Troll diet is not making this a more effective group. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As usual nothing constructive there. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hiding comments
User:Beccaynr please explain why you are hiding my comments. I have legitimate concerns that this project is being used for canvassing at AFDs rather than for page improvement and seeing the discussions above I see that this is a longstanding issue with this project. Accordingly it is inappropriate for you to hide my comments. Mztourist (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed here and elsewhere far too many times already. Charts have been made listing all AFDs who participated and how they voted, and these have confirmed that there is no canvasing or votestacking going on here.  Hiding your unrelated comments where you post the same nonsense accusation all over the place, is appropriate.   D r e a m Focus  12:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Prove it, link the charts. My comments are neither unrelated nor nonsense as you assert. They also show a series of personal attacks against me. Mztourist (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You accuse others of canvassing but don't consider that personal attacks against them, but someone trying to close off conversations unrelated to the post they were put into, you consider a personal attack against you.  D r e a m Focus  13:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said originally, canvassing within this project has been a longstanding issue and I saw that going on here which is why I raised it. Please provide the charts that prove there is "no canvassing or votestacking". I don't agree that the conversations are unrelated to the post, but in any event when have I said that closing such conversations is a personal attack on me? 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist, I did not only hide your comments, and they are still viewable by clicking on the banner. As discussed above, I believe the issue is what best supports the work of ARS. The ARS Code of Conduct includes, "Please be sure to follow the guideline on canvassing" and "Focus on improving content." I had thought the message I placed in the banner that collapses the comments was clear enough when it linked to the canvassing guideline, particularly in light of the concern about canvassing you express here (and due to comments such as "Yes that's why it should be deleted" in the William Mahlon Davis entry, and "He's no more notable than any of von Richthofen's other 79 victories" in the Tom Rees (airman) entry), but I think I can expand the explanation in the banner to also include a direct reference to the ARS Code of Conduct and WP:5P4. Per WP:5P4, when you have concerns, you can "discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures," etc. With an expanded explanation in the banner, it will hopefully be more clear that the ARS page is for the discussion of improvements to the content of articles, and if you have concerns about the project, you can bring them to this Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Collapsing conversations in already closed discussions seems kind of pointy. And with the ongoing ANI conversation, the timing has the appearance of being kind of retaliatory. Why not just leave it? ApLundell (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly new to ARS, but the point is to affirm the ARS Code of Conduct, the canvassing guidelines, and WP:5P4. I think the ARS Code of Conduct makes it clear that the entries for articles should focus on improvements, and particularly when read in conjunction with WP:5P4, the entries shouldn't be used to make larger WP:POINTs about the project. Affirming a commitment to the code of conduct and civility on the ARS page is not intended to be retaliatory. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If a page is raised here, then it is a suitable place for discussing the merits also. This is not a closed group where only some Users are allowed to express their views and conflicting views are excluded. My comment on William Mahlon Davis was in response to a comment that "I am having trouble finding sources" which indicates non-notability. In relation to Tom Rees I was commenting on the fact that the sources are about von Richthofen and not Rees. Mztourist (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the instructions at the top of the page and the Code of Conduct make it clear that the AfD discussion is where keep/delete and notability merits should be discussed. The instructions at the top of the page include, "When posting here, please be sure to: [...] Include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to improve the content. Please ensure that your comment here is neutrally worded. (You can also !vote to delete an article at its deletion discussion because you think it is untenable in its present state, and still list it here in the hope that another editor will find a way to improve it and save it.)" Debating notability, campaigning for deletion, and expressing concerns about canvassing therefore do not appear to be appropriate in the ARS article entries, and other forums exist for those discussions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that a lack of sources probably indicates that an article should be deleted (Davis) and that sources don't relate to the page's subject (Rees) are perfectly valid comments to make here. Similarly pointing out potential canvassing is also valid. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The instructions I quoted above, the Code of Conduct, and the canvassing guideline all indicate that campaigning for deletion should happen at the AfD discussion, not here. Similarly, the article entries are for discussions focused on improvements to the articles, so debates about notability appear to be relevant to the AfD discussion, not here. Concerns about canvassing, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, can be addressed on this Talk page or other dispute resolution forums, but do not appear to fit within the Code of Conduct and the focus on improvements in each article entry. I am concerned that off-topic discussions in article entries distract from and potentially are disruptive to the work of ARS, so I am asking you to please use the appropriate forums for comments advocating deletion, disputing notability, and raising concerns about canvassing. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion and mine is that comments on sourcing (or lack thereof) and possible canvassing are appropriate to be included on the relevant Rescue List entry. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I am asking that when there is a pending AfD discussion, and your comments are relevant to the AfD discussion and not the improvement or rescue of articles, e.g. campaigning for deletion/denying notability, that those comment be made at AfD, not here, because the AfD discussion is the appropriate forum, pursuant to the ARS instructions, the ARS Code of Conduct and WP:5P4. I also continue to ask that you use the Talk page or other appropriate forums to address your concerns about canvassing, pursuant to the ARS instructions, the ARS Code of Conduct and WP:5P4. These requests are made based on the ARS instructions, the ARS Code of Conduct and WP:5P4 to help avoid distraction from and potential disruption to the work of ARS. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I support this position. Otherwise this forum becomes a fork of AfD discussions, an alternative debating ground that will lead to confusion and complaint. If anyone disagrees, and wants to advocate deletion outside of AfD, they are free to create their own Project. --  Green  C  17:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:5P4 is rich considering what I am being called in many of those hidden discussions. I am entitled to comment on sourcing or lack thereof and when I believe canvassing is taking place. This project is not a closed group where only those who share a certain perspective can comment. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mztourist, please recognize that I did not only hide your comments, and all of the comments are still viewable. A WP:5P4 reminder seems important to help support the work of ARS. I have never said that you are not entitled to comment, but I am asking for comments to be made pursuant to the ARS instructions, the ARS Code of Conduct, and WP:5P4, to help support the work of ARS. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And will you be making the WP:5P4 reminder to the User who was making personal attacks? Mztourist (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My hope is for the banner to remind everyone who visits ARS about WP:5P4, not just those who have comments hidden underneath it. Beccaynr (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would hope so too. I would note that some User's comments that do not appear to relate to page improvement don't get hidden, here: Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Massive attack
Not the band. Seems the new tactic now is to just "boldly" merge content from BLPs to a ship page and leave the BLP as a redirect, skipping AfD altogether and any kind of discussion process. Just look a: here. (And the next 500 edits) do a search for; "Redirect after BOLD Merge" They're seemingly all military bio's, typically about guys with Navy Crosses and ships named after them. I think he's going thru the list of articles from "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen" that was closed Jan 23.- 225 articles at once. We should all be familiar with that train wreck. So far, 153 BLPs - gone. In just the past 5 days. WTF? 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this maybe a question for WP:HELPDESK? Beccaynr (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Now at ANI. -- Green  C  19:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents  D r e a m Focus  19:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The "new tactic" is to... apply consensus. Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC) And they're not BLPs, they're all deceased. Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you forgotten? Your goal is to improve articles, not just to keep as many as possible. If you are complaining about articles where the consensus is that there is not sufficient sourcing to keep a standalone article (and that it should be merged) you do have to find additional sourcing to keep said article.  If you feel every merged article is a personal attack and refuse to abide by consensus, you are likely to not have a pleasant experience on Wikipedia, and we are unlikely to be able to remedy that. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ←power~enwiki Nobody has "refuse[d] to abide by consensus". And apparently the consensus is that they can redirect (and hopefully merge) all the Navy Cross/Ship named sailors to the ships, depending on the level of referencing.  But the merger is without prejudice to recreating the deleted articles.  If that's the rule, we all will live by it.
 * Disclosure of prior AFDs ought to be done, not suppressed. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen How dare you edit my comments as you did here:. Mztourist (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mztourist I apologize. That was an accident.  So much for WP:AGF.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the ANI discussion is going to allow the redirects for articles with the one source to stand. Basically, 'no harm, no foul'.
 * The massed redirects were an impediment to the preferred strategy of improving articles – as a response to AFDs. The admins at ANI think that inconsequential.
 * I also interpret it as leaving the door open to recreating the deleted articles, presumably with better and more sources.
 * WP:Dead horse. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While I was prepared to let this lie after your apology, I see that you later came back to add "So much for WP:AGF" to your comments above. So no, after the frequent personal attacks, other errors and misstatements:  I do not AGF from you. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It was a mistake. I apologized and still mean it. That's why they put Delete keys on computers. I also have conceded that ANI will say all those redirects were copacetic. I disagree, but it is a fact and ends that issue for me. So it was only a massive redirect not a massive attack. So please give it a rest; disengage. I have. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Tom Rees wasn't your only mistake, nor was it your only personal attack, just the most recent. You tell me to disengage, but you came back to add "So much for WP:AGF" to your comments above. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think he is apologizing but you don't accept it. "Such much for Good Faith." That is evidently an accurate description of the situation. There isn't much more to be said in this situation. Suggest you both go your separate ways and not escalate further. -- Green  C  04:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Its a "sorry not sorry" with a lack of good faith attempting to avert sanctions arising from the ANI that you started. Mztourist (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Burt Township Schools
User:Grand'mere Eugene, User:Cbl62 and User:WhisperToMe Nice rescue from an AFD, article improvement, and a DYK to boot. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Tabletop games deletions
Hey there! :) Since the ARS is not (or, at least in my opinion, should not be) only for current AFDs, I am just letting you know that I have been building User:BOZ/Games deletions this month, and it will probably take me another month or two to complete it. Most of it will never make a comeback, but there are probably some here and there which could be proven notable. If you find anything you want to work on, let me know! BOZ (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Textile performance
Went from AFD to the front page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Potential canvassing
This is regarding 7&6's postings on 7 November from 15:46 to 17:15 regarding the Arabeyes AfD. As noted by on 7&6's Talk Page, the two previous AfD participants that 7&6 neglected to inform were the nominator and someone who voted delete. I think that these omissions are an unlikely coincidence. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7&6 rectified his oversight when it was pointed out, I think that's sufficient. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:DRV

 * The beat goes on for George L. Knox II at DRV now. Here. Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is WP:CANVASS. Mztourist (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Those who participated in the discussion, should know about the DRV.  Read WP:APPNOTE.   D r e a m Focus  10:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Circular reasoning. They participated in all those discussions because they were notified here with the obvious intent of voting keep just for the sake of it. It's still canvassing when you take the multiple discussions into account. Avilich (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It would only be canvassing if there was an appeal to vote a certain way, but merely posting in the forum is not an appeal since evidently people who read this board can and do vote many ways. -- Green  C  18:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The usual flurry of keep votes, accompanied with half-baked (mis)interpretations of policy and poorly-researched google hits passing for sources, that immediately follow the posting of a notice here must be coincidence, then. Avilich (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * GreenC, this isn't a neutral forum. It's implied that the purpose of bringing AfDs to this project is so that like minded people will vote keep. Otherwise, are you seriously going to argue that people are posting about AfDs to a place called "rescue squad" because they think people here are going to vote for the articles to be deleted? What about things like asking for "reinforcement and support"? How is that not an appeal to vote a certain way? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's news to me I often vote delete, don't participate, or only participate with comments and/or article edits. Everyone who reads this forum behaves in their own way, including yourself. This forum attracts a wide range of readers and participants. Other mission-focused forums such as FRINGE also get notified of fringe topic AfDs, that sort of thing happens all over.  Also this was an appropriate place to post a notification due to previous discussions here. Your idea of 'like minded people' is discounted by the number of un-like-minded people who frequently post here. That's fine, the power of this forum, and Wikipedia, is radical openness and inclusion of everyone. --  Green  C  04:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, people are autonomous individuals and make their own decisions. Still though, if you took the main contributors to this forum they would totally have a particular slant that leans heavily toward "rescuing" articles. I'm sure you could find someone who joined 10 years ago and only contributes once a year or whatever who doesn't care about "rescuing" articles, but so what? There should really be a more substantive response to criticisms then handwavy comments like "we are all individuals" or "this is an open platform so whatever." Seriously, no one is anti-individualism or trying to silence you just because they want the forum to follow basic guidelines about not canvasing. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "so whatever" or hand wave but you didn't really respond to my points either. If the above is canvassing then the entire ARS project is canvassing and there has never been consensus for that. Like the FRINGE example, post a fringe topic AfD to FRINGE noticeboard what do you expect will happen? This sort of stuff exists all over Wikipedia. We need to trust one another to act objectively in making decisions and if you see a problem with a person go after them but going after an entire group makes little sense when there is diversity of behavior in the group. Which can be proven with stats. --  Green  C  06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which points? There's been lots of discussions about if ARS is canvasing or not. A lot of people think it is. I'm not sure where you would get consensus for it or what difference it would make though. It's not like ARS can't clean up it's act and get rid of the canvasing flourishes without the whole Wikipedia community having to agree that it should first. While I agree that we should trust each other to act objectively, the behavior of ARS members isn't objective, nor is the guide or title of the forum, and you can't divorce those things from each. I would say the same for FRINGE and other forums, but as far as I know there hasn't been repeated problems in AfDs with people from FRINGE. So this isn't a general problem with "forums" that applies to stuff all over Wikipedia. It's specific to ARS and ARS members. Sure, I could take it up with individual members of ARS, but I think it's as much a problem with the objectives and purpose of the forum as it is an issue with particular users. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what a canvassing flourish is. Can you link a recent example --  Green  C  20:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you know what a flourish is. If not, Google says it's to "wave (something) around to attract the attention of others." According to the Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles "Editors, particularly new editors, often ask the Article Rescue Squadron for help saving an article." Which is waving around that the Rescue Squad exists to "save articles" from being deleted. If I posted messages on users talk pages along the lines of "can you help me save this article?" or "I'll save this article for you" with a link to an AfD, that would be considered canvasing. The point is, the project waves around the fact that what it exists for. Sure, it's without explicitly saying "we vote keep in AfDs for you", but that's the intent behind it. Otherwise, the guide would just say the purpose of the project is to improve articles. Without saying "saving an article" repeatedly. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that is the intent but it might be better worded to encourage editors to improve articles, which is what occurs frequently anyway because you normally can't save with Keep votes only (contrary to popular opinion and easy to show with data). I personally would not be adverse to a group rule that votes alone are discouraged, only if you do some work to improve the article - in particular adding sources. Someone who works on an article should be allowed to participate in the AfD that can destroy their efforts, and rightly so they will know the article and sources best and explain why it should be kept. --  Green  C  03:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As you know ARS as a canvassing forum is being discussed at ANI now. User:GreenC there are a large number of Users participating in that discussion who share my and User:Adamant1's view that this is canvassing site. Perhaps better to focus all discussion on this issue in one place? Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that Template:Rescue list was, quite properly, posted at the AfD. This dispute over canvassing could perhaps have been avoided if it had also been posted at the DRV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently the only acceptable votes at AFDs are Delete or Merge. WP:AGF is being more honored in the breach than the observance.  You are culling the voters; and deciding who gets to vote based on scoreboarding and outcomes.  I try to improve articles and seldom vote.  I choose not to blindly vote keep; and I do not participate on many article that appear on the rescue squad page.
 * Reasonable minds may differ as to whether articles should be kept or culled. That there is an opposing view is a hallmark of fair debate and a catalyst for balanced consideration.  And when it is posted at ARS, articles are in fact often improved.   That some of you don't like the improvements or the sources is no proof of misconduct by the improving editors.
 * I have succssfully rescued many articles, and then taken them on to the main page at WP:DYK. That was because I improved the articles.  Conversely, when that happens, it is prima facie evidence that WP:Before was ignored or done haphazardly.  I don't write that at AFDs any longer, but it is a fact.  And it is not a "personal attack."
 * I have been affronted by the efforts of some of you to mass delete groups of articles. You know who you are.  And I will continue to oppose that kind of conduct.
 * The current effort at ANI is 'guilt by association' and has nothing to do with individual editors and their conduct. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Having been on the receiving end of various emotive comments from you 7&6 I don't AGF towards you. Mztourist (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet people who aren't particular ARS members are voting keep in AfDs everyday without a single issue. Even people from ARS who stay away from the seeder aspects. Weird. In the meantime there's plenty of examples of "inclusionists" ruthlessly trying to cull the herd when a "deletionist" gets reported to ANI. I've had it happen myself. At least in this case getting rid of ARS is being floated as an option, instead of just blocking all of you outright. Which I'm sure would be on the table if things were reversed. Ultimately getting rid of ARS would have zero effect on the ability of it's members to participate in AfDs or organize to improve articles in better places. So I really don't understand the emotive copulations or hyper bull about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Apparently the only acceptable votes at AFDs are Delete or Merge. That's disingenuous considering most of us have, you know, voted keep before. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to kindly ask you to take this to the ARS talk page, and the project page is getting wordy. This page is really not for protracted discussion. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will move the whole thing bc is it seems to be still going. I collapsed the other one already Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 7&6: ...has nothing to do with individual editors and their conduct. This is untrue- two ARS members have been topic banned and you have received a final warning. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. ARS functionally is you (13), Andrew, LB, and DF at this point— you can’t shift blame onto the organization as a whole when there’s only four frequently active members. Dronebogus (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also GreenC to some degree, but I don't count them in the same league. BTW, the whole thing about this having nothing to do with individual editors is nonsense considering 7&6 attacked me multiple times in the last couple of days when I posted here. It's also no surprise that they are down to 4 or 5 active members since they are so hostile toward outsiders. I could really see this project dying on it's own depending on how much the remaining members try to push things. It doesn't seem like they are willing to do anything to make it more welcoming and less like a canvasing forum. Let alone has their voting improved at all since the ANI complaint. But I don't see the criticisms or conflicts magically going away in the meanwhile either. So...."Shrug"...Maybe GreenC can turn it around somehow. That's the only option I see at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe if 13 and DF get themselves topic-banned, sure, I could see ARS reforming with new blood and less extreme “leaders”. Right now it’s just slightly quieter with Andrew indef banned and LB in the proverbial sin bin. Dronebogus (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s honestly not quite as bad now, I think some “rescue” nominations are still pretty random and pointless (Bidoof? Seriously?) or petty (the new ARS school nomination) but there’s at least an attempt at targeting more important topics and shifting away from pure AfD slugging. Dronebogus (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell the only none AfD thing listed here is the Oil degassing article. Which they didn't even post and no one from ARS has edited it. So they aren't at all shifting away from pure AfD slugging. Even if they were though it wouldn't change the nature of the thing. Them canvasing and doing other nonsense 75% of the time instead of 100% isn't really going to change the atmosphere much. Having an actual plan to address people's concerns, implementing it and holding each other to account for their mistakes will, but it's obvious none of them want to do that. Especially the last bit. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 13 doesn’t seem to actually want to reform ARS, based on my interactions with them on the main project talk page. When a prospective new user showed up their “welcome message” was complaining about the (TOTALLY FALSE of course) allegations against certain members if the ARS, and when I called them out they just devolved into paranoid ranting about me being a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and “the inquisition”. It seems like they’d rather go down with the ship so they can blame everyone else for sinking it rather than have it undergo a necessary overhaul. Dronebogus (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Astronomical locations in fiction articles
There has been a full scale culling of entries at astronomical locations in fiction (and articles like United Nations in popular culture) using the same ridiculous criteria that a page and each entry must mention and cite the specific topic "_____in fiction" or it gets deleted. This has been going on for months now with no stopping the editor, although many have tried reasoning with them. See Saturn in fiction and its history page as only one of probably dozens of examples where Wikipedia's wonderful historical record of human space accomplishments, and how they've been reflected in society by humanities literature and film cultures, have been virtually destroyed by nonsensically restrictive interpretation of its guideline language. And see Astronomical locations in fiction and its history page for another feel of the nonstop culling. This is a crisis of the deletionists stretching badly worded popular culture guideline language and essays to decimate not only articles but entire topic trees. This slow-and-fast rolling deletionists dream is probably the worse misuse of guideline language I've seen on Wikipedia and I ask members of this wikiproject to get involved. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a major one where editors have stood up to the deletions, Stars and planetary systems in fiction and its very large talk page focusing on this question. Now an AfD is threatened because some have pushed back. Please skim the history and talk page for guidance on this problem, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Please stop with the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CANVASING behavior (on Christmas, even). The singling out of a single editor as some kind of enemy of the encyclopedia for non-disruptive behavior you dislike is especially problematic. This is not the way to improve the encyclopedia when you have a disagreement. Take it to WP:RFC. Dronebogus (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the linked pages (etc.) and I think those criticisms are unfair. I'm not sure who is "right" and who is "wrong" in the actual dispute over these pop culture pages, but I think it's reasonable to seek more input. After looking, I see an AfD where the consensus was delete, without prejudice to recreating a better version, a talk page with an overwhelming wall-of-text, and some pages where there has been edit warring with little discussion. There's probably more that I didn't see. Someone (not me) would have to articulate clearly what exactly is the interpretation of MOS:POPCULT that is disputed, and then subjecting that to an RfC is, indeed, a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On Christmas because the well-worked on U.N. page was just deleted using many of the same arguments (that each item must reference 'U.N. in popular culture' in addition to being about the U.N., and essays), and the wall of text, well, read it? Randy Kryn (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What precisely is wrong with the criterion that sources must talk about the UN in pop culture as a subject unto itself and can’t just be “I read this novel it had the UN in it [cites novel]”? Dronebogus (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with that, if your purpose is to find sources that talk about the UN in popular culture. If your purpose is to find references about the UN in popular culture, it would not be a useful list. The fundamental problem is one person's trivia is another's gold. You may say it's unequivocal trivia, but not true. For example, I subscribe to an academic journal for Robert Louis Stevenson studies. A large part of it is essentially a list of RLS in popular culture updated with each issue. Scholars use this information in a number of ways. It's important, useful, scholarly activity. Not trivia. -- Green  C  05:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A fair argument, but Wikipedia’s purpose is to provide condensed knowledge from high-quality sources, not provide an uncritical list of raw information and tell the reader “make of this what you will”. The main target audience is the general public, not scholars who can actually make some esoteric use of what the layperson reads as random trvia. They should be writing the sources WP uses, not going to WP for the raw material. WP is not a publisher of original conclusions, and it’s not a source list for them either. Dronebogus (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing there is a great demand for making this particular type of information, I question it is not Wikipedia's purpose, based on the evidence/consensus of it being so widespread for so long. It is a form of consensus. I know there have been other consensus discussions which I have not participated in or looked at closely so can't comment on right now - was it well attended, overwhelming or weak consensus, etc... -- Green  C  15:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That there is much of a certain type of editing does not mean that there is consensus that such edits are constructive or encyclopedic. Vandalism and undisclosed editing for example, are both plentiful and unacceptable. The uncritical addition of trivia without context is neither, but its abundance doesn’t lend it legitimacy. Vexations (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing this to vandalism does not make sense. Vandalism is unambiguously bad behavior no one would disagree. This is a case where there are competing visions of what Wikipedia is. --  Green  C  16:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I provided two examples that disprove the claim that prevalence establishes consensus. That’s not a comparison. Vexations (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And why Christmas? See the Solar System in fiction history page. The edits haven't stopped for Christmas, they just keep chopping away at long-time articles, every day, day in, day out, using the absurd logic that "entries need to be sourced to a secondary source that discusses the topic of this article (i.e. Solar System in fiction), not just the work" (i.e. that each entry must mention the exact wording and topic 'Solar System in fiction'). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The stated goal of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron is to see that articles are improved rather than deleted, where possible. That's what I'm doing. Rather than type out an entirely new explanation in full, I'll quote myself from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight, where you also raised this issue: the issue at hand is that consensus is opposed to TV Tropes-style lists of appearances of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever with entries that are based solely on WP:Primary sources. Consensus is also opposed to basing the content of such articles on WP:Secondary sources about the works themselves, as opposed to sources about the overarching topic of the article (i.e. X in fiction/popular culture/whatever), see MOS:POPCULT. This is not something I came up with on my own, this has been discussed pretty thoroughly (the current text of MOS:POPCULT is the result of fairly lengthy discussion about how best to handle this kind of material). For some specific examples of TV Tropes-style lists being rejected in favour of prose articles based on proper secondary (and/or tertiary) sources, see WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. Simply fixing these massive and widespread issues with the articles that remain, in the same way we have fixed such issues before with similar articles, seems a lot more sensible to me than dragging a bunch of articles to WP:AfD to relitigate this separately for every single article. and A good example of this is Earth in science fiction, which was nominated for deletion back when it was just a list of examples (see WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination)), but was rewritten as a prose article and is now a WP:Good article thanks mainly to User:Piotrus, whom I gave a WP:Deletion to Quality Award as a result. The benefit of doing what I'm doing—replacing the lists with prose articles where I can and redirecting them where I cannot—instead of deleting them first (as with WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction) is that the edit history is retained in case anybody wants to write lists like these over at e.g. TV Tropes or Wikia. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have noticed you have worked to save some articles, and do so at a high level of quality, that is indeed in the spirit of ARS, and Wikipedia, thank you for continuing to do that, we know how much more work it is to save then delete. Article content that is deleted is also preserved at Deletionwiki and the Wayback Machine among other places should anyone wish to do something with it in the future. Right now probably the best thing is to keep an index so it not lost. -- Green  C  15:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would like to echo the thanks, for your hard work improving these low-quality lists to become proper articles or creating redirects where necessary. 21:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk • contribs)
 * Another one bites the dust..., (did this happen?" nobody in particular asks) as the beat goes on. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You say "smile", I say "cheese". "Cartier", I say, "Please". "Income tax", I say "Jesus!". MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And the ARS continues to speak in a weird language of riddles and pop culture references. Dronebogus (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing
The "List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants" does not meet this project's goal of article improvement. The explanation "Gateway article to separate lists of all the world's cities. Listed alphabetically by name and by country. the related lists are up for deletion, too. I think this pivot point is useful to Wikipedia's readers and should be WP:Preserved. WP:Not paper and question about sourcing." is nothing more than someone's argument for why the article should be kept, and I consider it a form of canvassing. –dlthewave ☎ 12:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No "canvassing." What part of sourcing do you not understand.  Clearly the deletion of scores of articles is within the scope this project.  Your attempt to censor what can be  posted here is unsupported by reason, rule or policy.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not canvassing. 7&6=13 gave a rationale as is the practice of the members. So a member gives a rationale and it is canvassing...but I seem to remember you deleting the proposals by another member for not giving a rationale. Lightburst (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In part, because of the unique fact that this involved not just one article, but dozens, it required an explanation. A mere listing of the single article without comment would put the controversy into a false light, and deprive project members of vital information.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As I stated in the AfD. I could improve these references with mainstream sourcing. However the main stream sourcing would just use the same censuses that the UN used. That seems like a time waster. Lightburst (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that most active members of the Article Rescue Squadron already commented there before it was put on the Rescue list. I found it since I bookmarked the List Wikiproject, looking into that at least once a week.  It is understand. without having to explain it every single time, that when you post something on the list you want others to help find reliable sources to prove its notable and to help fix the article when needed.  You do not have the right to remove someone else's post though.   D r e a m Focus  13:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

When an editor !votes "keep" and then adds the AfD to the Rescue List, I think the intention is pretty clear. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He voted keep on January 9th, then after the AFD got relisted on January 14th he posted on the Rescue list before anyone else voted. You are the nominator of that article, so I think your intention here is pretty clear.  Someone disagreed with you, so you now accusing them of canvassing when they are clearly not.  The overwhelming majority of time someone post something on the list they also vote in the AFD, nothing wrong with that.   D r e a m Focus  02:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good practice to avoid probity issues would be to abstain from voting on any AfD that one lists here. It doesn't look good when someone !votes "keep" and then lists the AfD at a page called Article Rescue Squadron. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you post, you can vote too. If you list it here, you can post it and vote.  Or vote and then post.  You are encouraged to use  ~  template in Articles for deletion discussions, to notify editors about the listing here. The tag can be placed below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.  The immediately preceding comment is but one user's opinion.  I disagree with the claims made; that has never been the standard.  It is not a binary or Hobson's choice.  Consider the source, use your judgment and make your own decision. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How do the sources affect whether it is appropriate to advertise the discussion that you have/will ~vote in? MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , to follow up this comment of yours, the above question is not rhetorical. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

, I am not accusing you of Canvassing, but notifying specific users about AfD discussions is a sensitive area. So could you please describe the rationale for the Talk Page messages (regarding 2015 Nadia riots) that you sent to Yelena Vasilisa Marya, Kartiknaths and Tayi Arajakate? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, could you please reply to this question? MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You have again expressed your concerns. I think you should reread Sealioning, WP:POV pushing and the cautionary advice on my talk page.  You say you are aware of it.  My part in this discussion is over.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

A related discussion at WP:ANI
Removing deletion notices from articles. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of this relates to 2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly election; and someone removes the AFD notice from the article, even as it is up for deletion. Edit warring, I think.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

search for repeat nominations
I want to search all open AFDs that are for things that were nominated at least once before. Not getting perfect results though. I can tell it to not include those with a single word but not block those with the phrase "The result was" which would mean it has already been closed. Can also search by the month and year I suppose, to lessen the negative results. Maybe I'll try a custom google search.  D r e a m Focus  00:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a slightly different search (with lots of old junk on the end). Copy the URL from edit because I don't know how to escape it correctly }}] I just looked for Articles title "Articles for deletion", contained "2nd nomination)", and didn't contain "Subsequent" (seemed like the rarest word in the closed header). Maybe you know of some cases where it fails. StrayBolt (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's more useful that Google  since it list things by the date.  Makes it easier to find those still open.   D r e a m Focus  05:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe the number of nominations should be a column in Current AfD's. StrayBolt (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)