Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please follow these instructions.

Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please follow these instructions.

Adding a Rescue tag to an upcoming event

I'm here because I want to get your opinion about adding a rescue tag to an article. The article is about an event/movement that has popped up in the past two weeks. The idea for the event was created by an artist but is now driven by an essentially anonymous public. Since the article was taken to AfD, several news sources have covered the event (NYT, LAT, WSJ, and WashP to name the most reliable) which have now been added as references. The AfD discussion seems to be split between Keep and Delete for various reasons. I want to know if you think that adding the rescue tag would be considered canvassing. I don't want to sully the name of ARS or be considered a canvasser which is why I haven't mentioned the name of the article here and asked about the application. If more info is needed, let me know. OlYeller^Talktome 15:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that's not a lot of info but I really want to avoid canvassing if at all possible. OlYeller^Talktome 15:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the article is already well-sourced and written (or at least as well-sourced and written as it can be), then there shouldn't be a need to rescue it and the AfD should just be a discussion about policy and guideline interpretations. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. {{rescue}} is primarily a plea for help in getting sources. If there are plenty and it's already covered in multiple reliable sources (and the ones you list seem fine), I doubt the ARS can help you unearth any better/different ones which would change people's minds. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

James Bibby

I need some help and advice on the James Bibby article. Another editor has nominated it for deletion, and has tagged the article as unsourced. I have found and added references, but the other editor keeps removing my references, and then restoring the "unsourced" tag. I do not want to edit war. Will someone please look at the article. I think that it is notable, and references can be found. The article is worth rescuing. Andy14and16 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Rescuing articles is a worthy clause, but "rescuing" them with unreliable sources is counter-productive. You haven't offered any justification of the reliability of any of the "sources" you have introduced to the article or relied on in the AFD, and not responded to the evidence that each and every one of them is unreliable. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion and checked out the result (delete) and a cache version of the article. Sadly, it doesn't look like we could have done much more to rescue this one, the sources were just too marginal for the crowd.--Milowent (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

This article has been nominated for deletion. I have placed a rescue banner at the article itself but would also like to include it in any list the ARS has for general distribution to its members. I'm not very good with tools (templates, etc). Any assistance would be appreciated.--Buster7 (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Beware, Princess Elizabeth

This one is up for deletion, and will likely be merged. I'm not sure if it's notable, but flagged it for rescue. I've found some sources, all pretty weak, thought I'd mention it here to see if anyone has any ideas or opinions on it. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jog (moped)

This is currently at AfD. I'd say that it was notable enough to sustain an article and probably a good candidate for you guys to rescue. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AN/I thread which could be of interest

Pretty sad in my opinion. [1]. --Cyclopia^talk 16:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I added my 2 cents. At least this group's membership haven't been called "ARSeholes" yet, though its pretty close. Your comparison of ARS to Wikipedia Review was a good one. The fact is, some articles really do cry out for deletion, and others cry out for rescue. No one mentions all the articles that get improved and rescued when these discussions come up.--Milowent (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Silverseren has stirred things up now!--Milowent (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yay! :P Silverseren^C 19:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing the Article Rescue Squadron about an RfC in which their name is being smeared? Truly reprehensible! NOW where can the GOOD editors go to bitch and moan in peace? I mean REALLY-- attempting to improve articles is truly DESPICABLE! Civility should be set aside when addressing such editors! You lot ought to be ASHAMED!!! Dekkappai (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean, just think about all the decent editors who come to Wikipedia for the real reason the project exists: to chat, to make up rules on what should be excluded, to debate, and to play online grab-ass. PLEASE consider their feelings. All these articles you're writing and saving are like a slap in the face to them! Hey, maybe we can should write a rule proclaiming expanding and sourcing an article which is up for deletion as an act of "Incivility". Yeah, that sounds good. Now pardon me while I do some searches on subjects I don't want to read about and don't think anyone else should either. Harrumph! Dekkappai (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

lol.--Milowent (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing from ARS

It's not like I've been active on the ARS talk page, but if anyone cares, I'm withdrawing from the Article Rescue Squadron as I am concerned that the project presents itself poorly on Wikipedia, takes insufficient care to ensure its work is in line with community consensus policy, and has let itself be diverted from the core business of building a better encyclopedia. I nevertheless hope to continue debating with you on AfDs and I continue to believe that each AfD should be scrutinised on its merits and care should be taken to avoid the deletion of perfectly worthwhile article topics. Thanks everyone. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• No worries, DFW, keep up your good work on the project. Membership is just a badge, and you don't need no stinkin' badges to do good work. The slanders against ARS are pitiful in my opinion, but in the end nothing save articles like actually working on articles to improve them.--Milowent (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Milowent. For what it's worth, I think the issue largely arises from this: that the newer members of ARS are the most enthusiastic and most likely to be visible as ARS members, but don't have the expertise necessary to make policy-supported arguments and use the templates and other tools appropriately. Whereas the good members of ARS (yourself included) know that the best way to save an article is to just dive in and improve it, and then cite significant coverage in reliable independent sources at the AfD. There's really no part of that process that lends itself to advertising the ARS. The results is that good rescues are done by individuals but bad rescues are done by the project. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but getting rid of the highly-visible templates is probably the first step, and undertaking outreach to make the community aware of your best work is probably the second. It would probably also help to foster a community of policy at the talk page here rather than a community of outrage; there's always the temptation to call a deletion nomination "ridiculous" or "outrageous", and often that's justified, but when it's not followed up by the policy reasons supporting that outrage it leads to sloppy argument and a contempt for opposing viewpoints. Anyway, as I said, best of luck! - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If I might be serious for a moment. I've never joined the Squadron myself, DFW, though I think it's a great idea, and I follow the on-going soap-operas related to it... I find intentionally diving into AfDs to be too hard on my nerves, so I just go into them when they come knocking, and of course, we individual editors, are never prevented from improving and saving articles ourselves. I think one unfortunate result of an organization of editors dedicated to this is that it makes an easy target for demonization (see the above RfC), though this is not the fault of the people here. Dekkappai (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I never "joined". There's no real reason to. Anyone can see what's there to be rescued and do some source addition. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I think it's a shame that DustFormsWords feels a need to leave. I think the point about the templates is a good one--it sometimes appears as if there's a mentality of "we're here to save the day!" when the goal is to have good article--the note in small text in the AFD article is probably sufficient since the AFS template takes interested parties to the AFD. And I think we might do better if we put more effort into long term followup on the articles that are rescued. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

KGB Archiver

This article was recently subject to an AfD, which was subsequently withdrawn. However, in the month since that happened, none of the sources found during the process of the AfD have been added to the article. This is definitely within ARS's remit, so if anyone fancies an easy job it's there for the taking. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm done adding the references in. If anyone wants to expand the information further with what's in them, go ahead. I don't know much about this stuff, so i'm going to stay away from trying to content edit, i'd probably mangle it badly. :P Silverseren^C 01:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you should be bold and dive right in, it's a good way to learn, and we can help clean up if you mangle anything. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that I know next to nothing about computer software. I only vaguely understand what this KGB Archiver does, which is something to do with uncompressing and compressing ZIP files, right? I do not have the expertise or even the general amateur knowledge for the subject. Silverseren^C 01:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(; Don't let that stop you. I know about software, why don't you have a go and I'll take a look--you'll probably do better than you think. In one sense it's pretty easy since if you don't know the topic, you're completely reliant on the sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the most I can do. I found some other sources as well and added them. How does it look? Silverseren^C 10:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I just took a quick look, I think it looks quite good, I'll come back in the next day or so and make a pass. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. Many thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Opinion

What do you guys think of the request to remove a section of WP:CORP that contradicts WP:GNG and basically says that local sources mean nothing? I'm unsure whether the people against it are correct or are just deletionists, so I'd love the Article Rescue Squadron's opinion on it. Click here to view the debate. PÆon (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is good reason for WP:CORP to say this. WP:CORP has its own specific considerations - to avoid promotionalism. Local sources about businesses tend to be promotional. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully my comment was able to make them understand. Silverseren^C 20:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the history behind the phrase "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." in WP:CORP, I don't recall seeing that alluded to until recently. Perhaps its been there but I didn't realize it. In AfD practice, I think local sources get discounted a bit, especially in the case of small or weekly-alternative newspapers. But they do carry some weight with editors, and is an "indication of notability," though not dispositive.--Milowent (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinions at the actual discussion, and not just here, would also be appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I for one am very happy to have been lead to this page. If my article needs help, then I will do what I can. Thank you for the tips, and I will comply. Herosrus (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful

This discussion. Admins again dissing us. You know, I wish other people would realize that all of the ARS are individual editors and that we do have rather differing opinions on things. Silverseren^C 20:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is one troll, probably a certain deletionist who has done this crap before in the past, just stirring up trouble. Nothing to do with the rest of us. Dream Focus 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, generally the font is slightly different when you stack the deck with "keep" !votes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC) _{this is vaguely a joke but IMHO has an element of truth in it.}

(edit conflict) So calling you and Dream Focus ARS members is dissing you? Maybe I missed something. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

When its coming from the same users who previously did so and when there was no reason to bring the ARS up? Yes. Silverseren^C 21:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see my name in what was linked to at all. But yeah, certain editors are constantly trash talking the ARS. Dream Focus 21:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I know there are plenty of editors who trash the ARS, I just don't think that the mere mention of it is "dissing". Oh well. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles are kept based on discussion, not vote staking. And most articles nominated are saved simply by spending two seconds clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and finding sources, instead of just doing drive by delete votes everywhere where references aren't already in the article. Dream Focus 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And, as I have said time and again, I go into an article to improve it. The only time I just vote keep is when the article is already well referenced and formed. So please keep your insinuations to yourself. Silverseren^C 21:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said Silver, goes for many of us. And those bare votes can be crucial. There have been times where admins have vote counted citing an over whelming majority voting to delete even when editors have spent hours integrating in top line university press sources directly on the subject. Sometimes the numerical balance of votes is irrelevent, but sometimes it seems to be the decisive factor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles are kept based on discussion, not vote staking come on, let's get real, most Admins will buckle if they see long-term editors voting keep regardless of the strength of the argument. Anyone who has been a couple of years knows that vote-stacking *does* work - as long as it's done by established editors. Is the Article Canvass Squadron the only place this happens? of course not. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's all remain polite. I'll probably catch some grief for this, but I'll make the following observations anyway:

• I'm not very happy with the wall of fame--to my mind, it gives the impression that the primary goal here is to prevent deletions of articles, rather than improve them. Saving articles means not only providing enough references to result in a keep, but also in bringing it to a good standard. The banner is a bit the same, if it were up me, I'd get rid of both.
• I think it would be good to start a page of "Adopted articles", ones which have been shown to be notable, but which have not yet been brought up to a good quality level, the idea being to promote followup, as we did with the KGB Archiver article. I think that was a good example of how we can work together as a team.

Whatever people think, it would be good to take this moment as an opportunity to reflect upon how we might improve our work here. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone in the squad is here to imporve the encylopedia, though like any diverse group we have our own different ideas. Sometimes its fruitless to spend hours improving an article if its going to be deleted due to an "overwhelming number" of delete votes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"the primary goal here is to prevent deletions of articles, rather than improve them" — That's been clear for years. The KGB Archiver discussion just below is an excellent example. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

99% of Wikipedia's millions of articles are of less than good quality. We do not have the resources to make a significant impact on this. As we have limited resources, we must perforce work efficiently. The Pareto principle (or 80:20 rule) indicates that we will do most good by raising articles from the poor state in which deletion is contemplated up to a level at which they are secure from this. Typically this is done just by adding a couple of good sources which show the merit of the topic and provide more information. I tend to lose interest at that point because further work is just a matter of recapitulating what's in the sources and this adds little value. As one tries to raise the quality of the article, one increasingly gets bogged down in unproductive disputes over minor differences of content and style. So, I plan to continue to work on the low-hanging fruit and will only go further for topics of particular personal interest. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That would depend entirely on what you think a good outcome is, yes? And for what it's worth, in my experience most of the articles that through AFD don't have anyone actively working on them, and, as in the case of the KGB Archiver article, there's essentially no discussion over style or content if you make a pass to improve it. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal above seemed to be to encourage teamwork - having multiple editors working upon the same article to to raise its quality. But, as soon as you do this, you will get the problem of two cooks in one kitchen and disputes will tend to arise. And if just one editor focusses upon an article for a while, you tend to get the similar problem of ownership. But I don't want to be too negative. If there should seem to be a case where teamwork would be especially efficacious then feel free to invite me. But be careful what you wish for .... :) Colonel Warden (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you and I would get along fine in a tag team--I think we're both thick skinned enough to handle it. But if you really wanted some fun we could invite OrangeMike as well. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Our Colonel is near the mark; we do not have the resources [clueful editors] to properly maintain Wikipedia's millions of articles in anything above a poor state. Please stop endlessly inflating the project with inappropriate subtopics of the important topics and fighting tooth and nail to keep everything. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a rescue "squadron", not an improvement "squadron". Improvement of already notable articles belongs to Wikiprojects, and rightly so, since they collect a focused group of editors. Here my understanding is that of performing a more basic task: preventing notable and reasonable stuff from being deleted only because it is in a precarious state. This doesn't mean you're wrong in general, Nuujinn, quite the contrary: what you say is simply what WP should be everyday. But that is not the focus of this group. --Cyclopia^talk 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. But I think that so long as this group focuses solely on that one aspect, it will be subject to criticism that it's really just a canvassing group of inclusionists. I don't think that's true, myself, since as Silver points out, any group is just a collection of individuals with their own interests and approaches.

And to be clear, I'm not talking about improvement of already notable articles, I'm talking about trying to shepherd articles that have rescued, much as animal rescue does. But if the folks here aren't interested in getting involved in article improvement, then I would suggest that if we rescue an article that needs additional work, what might be appropriate would be to put a copyedit template ({{Copyedit}}), at least that way the guild of copy editors will take a look at it. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Animal rescue is an apt metaphor, I suspect. Personally, I'd just as soon euthanize all abandoned animals and redirect the funds towards helping human beings, because that's my value system. But I don't have that say, because the folks who donate to animal rescue have the right to invest their money in line with their belief system, not mine. If I were to sit around and constantly and loudly complain that spaying dogs and cats was stealing food from orphan children, then I'd sound a lot more like the critics of the ARS. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I do do content work, it's just that I enjoy adding references far more than writing material. And since the problem in most AfDs are that references are lacking, I work there, so I get two things done at once, I save an article and also improve it with references. I mean, I spent a considerable amount of time yesterday working on referencing Warrior, when it had no references at all when I began doing so. Silverseren^C 23:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Muir Skate

This article is at the end of it's AfD and it's not looking very good. It has three local sources, one national source (snippet), and one international source, but that isn't enough to the many deletionists attacking it. It seems like an easy save to me, but maybe I'm wrong about it's notability. Is the article notable to you guys? PÆon (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think articles are usually discussed here. Although no reason why they shouldn't be, this is how things are done on other Wikiprojects. I restored the reference to Concrete Wave, since that is a major magazine for this industry, and no reason for someone to have tried to delete that. [2] Dream Focus 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I already opined Lean Keep. Its a marginal article that could go either way, I did some searching and there's not much more to be done to rescue it.--Milowent (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the palaver over Tammy Jennings

Observe the amount of time wasted discussing deletion of the Tammy Jennings article, which was deleted because of blind adherence to WP policies, and then, as predicted, resurrected a few months later. More time was spent arguing about deletion than contributing to the article. cojoco (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got the touch...

Or rather, I have an incredibly cool set of databases at my disposal, now that I'm back in grad school. I was able to source a rather obscure television special currently at AfD (50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up) without needing to enlist the ARS' help at all.

So... if you've exhausted your resources and need some help, or can see something on Google News that's behind a paywall, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Be as specific as you can, and I'll get to the requests I can. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Awesome!--Milowent (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Wow, good to know. --Cyclopia^talk 11:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A new hater

User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire. Oy vey.--Milowent (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• *shrug* Anyone displaying that userbox is asking to get their comments deleted from AfDs as being in bad faith; it flat out says the user has formed an opinion prior to reviewing the merits of the individual article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe so. I'm not suggesting there is any action to be taken, as the user is entitled to his own opinions. But its annoyed to see an editor badmouth the improvement of articles. We could delete 1/2 the project and it would still be filled with articles needing much improvement.--Milowent (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments like this aren't likely to make them suddenly realise the error of their ways and join the ARS for an inclusionist group hug. When the ARS does good work, it does good work, and that's apparent on its face and doesn't need defending. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your 2nd statement. As to the 1st, I'm just providing important social feedback for the editor, though I don't intend to escalate it further. Last point about the whole userbox thing, anybody can nominate something for rescue, as we all know. For example, Oxford Today, which is clearly notable, is up for rescue; I would hope editors wouldn't just vote 'delete' on such articles.--Milowent (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• May I suggest next time, "As a productive member of the Article Rescue Squadron who edits in good faith, I find this userbox offensive and would prefer if you altered or deleted it," or "This userbox could be framed in a way that would be less aggressive, would you consider trying x"? Which, of course, doesn't preclude us from thinking he's being a jerk in private.  :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'll compromise and say something like that but in pirate-speak, e.g., "As aye old seadog o' th' Article Rescue Squadron who be editing in the Utmost Goode Faith, I find this userbox doubly offensive an' would prefer if ye altered or deleted it, an' be quick about it, ya scallywag!"--Milowent (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding a Rescue tag to an upcoming event

I'm here because I want to get your opinion about adding a rescue tag to an article. The article is about an event/movement that has popped up in the past two weeks. The idea for the event was created by an artist but is now driven by an essentially anonymous public. Since the article was taken to AfD, several news sources have covered the event (NYT, LAT, WSJ, and WashP to name the most reliable) which have now been added as references. The AfD discussion seems to be split between Keep and Delete for various reasons. I want to know if you think that adding the rescue tag would be considered canvassing. I don't want to sully the name of ARS or be considered a canvasser which is why I haven't mentioned the name of the article here and asked about the application. If more info is needed, let me know. OlYeller^Talktome 15:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that's not a lot of info but I really want to avoid canvassing if at all possible. OlYeller^Talktome 15:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the article is already well-sourced and written (or at least as well-sourced and written as it can be), then there shouldn't be a need to rescue it and the AfD should just be a discussion about policy and guideline interpretations. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. {{rescue}} is primarily a plea for help in getting sources. If there are plenty and it's already covered in multiple reliable sources (and the ones you list seem fine), I doubt the ARS can help you unearth any better/different ones which would change people's minds. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

James Bibby

I need some help and advice on the James Bibby article. Another editor has nominated it for deletion, and has tagged the article as unsourced. I have found and added references, but the other editor keeps removing my references, and then restoring the "unsourced" tag. I do not want to edit war. Will someone please look at the article. I think that it is notable, and references can be found. The article is worth rescuing. Andy14and16 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Rescuing articles is a worthy clause, but "rescuing" them with unreliable sources is counter-productive. You haven't offered any justification of the reliability of any of the "sources" you have introduced to the article or relied on in the AFD, and not responded to the evidence that each and every one of them is unreliable. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion and checked out the result (delete) and a cache version of the article. Sadly, it doesn't look like we could have done much more to rescue this one, the sources were just too marginal for the crowd.--Milowent (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

This article has been nominated for deletion. I have placed a rescue banner at the article itself but would also like to include it in any list the ARS has for general distribution to its members. I'm not very good with tools (templates, etc). Any assistance would be appreciated.--Buster7 (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Beware, Princess Elizabeth

This one is up for deletion, and will likely be merged. I'm not sure if it's notable, but flagged it for rescue. I've found some sources, all pretty weak, thought I'd mention it here to see if anyone has any ideas or opinions on it. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jog (moped)

This is currently at AfD. I'd say that it was notable enough to sustain an article and probably a good candidate for you guys to rescue. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AN/I thread which could be of interest

Pretty sad in my opinion. [3]. --Cyclopia^talk 16:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I added my 2 cents. At least this group's membership haven't been called "ARSeholes" yet, though its pretty close. Your comparison of ARS to Wikipedia Review was a good one. The fact is, some articles really do cry out for deletion, and others cry out for rescue. No one mentions all the articles that get improved and rescued when these discussions come up.--Milowent (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Silverseren has stirred things up now!--Milowent (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yay! :P Silverseren^C 19:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing the Article Rescue Squadron about an RfC in which their name is being smeared? Truly reprehensible! NOW where can the GOOD editors go to bitch and moan in peace? I mean REALLY-- attempting to improve articles is truly DESPICABLE! Civility should be set aside when addressing such editors! You lot ought to be ASHAMED!!! Dekkappai (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean, just think about all the decent editors who come to Wikipedia for the real reason the project exists: to chat, to make up rules on what should be excluded, to debate, and to play online grab-ass. PLEASE consider their feelings. All these articles you're writing and saving are like a slap in the face to them! Hey, maybe we can should write a rule proclaiming expanding and sourcing an article which is up for deletion as an act of "Incivility". Yeah, that sounds good. Now pardon me while I do some searches on subjects I don't want to read about and don't think anyone else should either. Harrumph! Dekkappai (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

lol.--Milowent (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing from ARS

It's not like I've been active on the ARS talk page, but if anyone cares, I'm withdrawing from the Article Rescue Squadron as I am concerned that the project presents itself poorly on Wikipedia, takes insufficient care to ensure its work is in line with community consensus policy, and has let itself be diverted from the core business of building a better encyclopedia. I nevertheless hope to continue debating with you on AfDs and I continue to believe that each AfD should be scrutinised on its merits and care should be taken to avoid the deletion of perfectly worthwhile article topics. Thanks everyone. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• No worries, DFW, keep up your good work on the project. Membership is just a badge, and you don't need no stinkin' badges to do good work. The slanders against ARS are pitiful in my opinion, but in the end nothing save articles like actually working on articles to improve them.--Milowent (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Milowent. For what it's worth, I think the issue largely arises from this: that the newer members of ARS are the most enthusiastic and most likely to be visible as ARS members, but don't have the expertise necessary to make policy-supported arguments and use the templates and other tools appropriately. Whereas the good members of ARS (yourself included) know that the best way to save an article is to just dive in and improve it, and then cite significant coverage in reliable independent sources at the AfD. There's really no part of that process that lends itself to advertising the ARS. The results is that good rescues are done by individuals but bad rescues are done by the project. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but getting rid of the highly-visible templates is probably the first step, and undertaking outreach to make the community aware of your best work is probably the second. It would probably also help to foster a community of policy at the talk page here rather than a community of outrage; there's always the temptation to call a deletion nomination "ridiculous" or "outrageous", and often that's justified, but when it's not followed up by the policy reasons supporting that outrage it leads to sloppy argument and a contempt for opposing viewpoints. Anyway, as I said, best of luck! - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If I might be serious for a moment. I've never joined the Squadron myself, DFW, though I think it's a great idea, and I follow the on-going soap-operas related to it... I find intentionally diving into AfDs to be too hard on my nerves, so I just go into them when they come knocking, and of course, we individual editors, are never prevented from improving and saving articles ourselves. I think one unfortunate result of an organization of editors dedicated to this is that it makes an easy target for demonization (see the above RfC), though this is not the fault of the people here. Dekkappai (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I never "joined". There's no real reason to. Anyone can see what's there to be rescued and do some source addition. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I think it's a shame that DustFormsWords feels a need to leave. I think the point about the templates is a good one--it sometimes appears as if there's a mentality of "we're here to save the day!" when the goal is to have good article--the note in small text in the AFD article is probably sufficient since the AFS template takes interested parties to the AFD. And I think we might do better if we put more effort into long term followup on the articles that are rescued. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

KGB Archiver

This article was recently subject to an AfD, which was subsequently withdrawn. However, in the month since that happened, none of the sources found during the process of the AfD have been added to the article. This is definitely within ARS's remit, so if anyone fancies an easy job it's there for the taking. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm done adding the references in. If anyone wants to expand the information further with what's in them, go ahead. I don't know much about this stuff, so i'm going to stay away from trying to content edit, i'd probably mangle it badly. :P Silverseren^C 01:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you should be bold and dive right in, it's a good way to learn, and we can help clean up if you mangle anything. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that I know next to nothing about computer software. I only vaguely understand what this KGB Archiver does, which is something to do with uncompressing and compressing ZIP files, right? I do not have the expertise or even the general amateur knowledge for the subject. Silverseren^C 01:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(; Don't let that stop you. I know about software, why don't you have a go and I'll take a look--you'll probably do better than you think. In one sense it's pretty easy since if you don't know the topic, you're completely reliant on the sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the most I can do. I found some other sources as well and added them. How does it look? Silverseren^C 10:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I just took a quick look, I think it looks quite good, I'll come back in the next day or so and make a pass. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. Many thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Opinion

What do you guys think of the request to remove a section of WP:CORP that contradicts WP:GNG and basically says that local sources mean nothing? I'm unsure whether the people against it are correct or are just deletionists, so I'd love the Article Rescue Squadron's opinion on it. Click here to view the debate. PÆon (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is good reason for WP:CORP to say this. WP:CORP has its own specific considerations - to avoid promotionalism. Local sources about businesses tend to be promotional. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully my comment was able to make them understand. Silverseren^C 20:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the history behind the phrase "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." in WP:CORP, I don't recall seeing that alluded to until recently. Perhaps its been there but I didn't realize it. In AfD practice, I think local sources get discounted a bit, especially in the case of small or weekly-alternative newspapers. But they do carry some weight with editors, and is an "indication of notability," though not dispositive.--Milowent (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinions at the actual discussion, and not just here, would also be appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I for one am very happy to have been lead to this page. If my article needs help, then I will do what I can. Thank you for the tips, and I will comply. Herosrus (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful

This discussion. Admins again dissing us. You know, I wish other people would realize that all of the ARS are individual editors and that we do have rather differing opinions on things. Silverseren^C 20:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is one troll, probably a certain deletionist who has done this crap before in the past, just stirring up trouble. Nothing to do with the rest of us. Dream Focus 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, generally the font is slightly different when you stack the deck with "keep" !votes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC) _{this is vaguely a joke but IMHO has an element of truth in it.}

(edit conflict) So calling you and Dream Focus ARS members is dissing you? Maybe I missed something. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

When its coming from the same users who previously did so and when there was no reason to bring the ARS up? Yes. Silverseren^C 21:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see my name in what was linked to at all. But yeah, certain editors are constantly trash talking the ARS. Dream Focus 21:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I know there are plenty of editors who trash the ARS, I just don't think that the mere mention of it is "dissing". Oh well. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles are kept based on discussion, not vote staking. And most articles nominated are saved simply by spending two seconds clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and finding sources, instead of just doing drive by delete votes everywhere where references aren't already in the article. Dream Focus 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And, as I have said time and again, I go into an article to improve it. The only time I just vote keep is when the article is already well referenced and formed. So please keep your insinuations to yourself. Silverseren^C 21:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said Silver, goes for many of us. And those bare votes can be crucial. There have been times where admins have vote counted citing an over whelming majority voting to delete even when editors have spent hours integrating in top line university press sources directly on the subject. Sometimes the numerical balance of votes is irrelevent, but sometimes it seems to be the decisive factor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles are kept based on discussion, not vote staking come on, let's get real, most Admins will buckle if they see long-term editors voting keep regardless of the strength of the argument. Anyone who has been a couple of years knows that vote-stacking *does* work - as long as it's done by established editors. Is the Article Canvass Squadron the only place this happens? of course not. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's all remain polite. I'll probably catch some grief for this, but I'll make the following observations anyway:

• I'm not very happy with the wall of fame--to my mind, it gives the impression that the primary goal here is to prevent deletions of articles, rather than improve them. Saving articles means not only providing enough references to result in a keep, but also in bringing it to a good standard. The banner is a bit the same, if it were up me, I'd get rid of both.
• I think it would be good to start a page of "Adopted articles", ones which have been shown to be notable, but which have not yet been brought up to a good quality level, the idea being to promote followup, as we did with the KGB Archiver article. I think that was a good example of how we can work together as a team.

Whatever people think, it would be good to take this moment as an opportunity to reflect upon how we might improve our work here. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone in the squad is here to imporve the encylopedia, though like any diverse group we have our own different ideas. Sometimes its fruitless to spend hours improving an article if its going to be deleted due to an "overwhelming number" of delete votes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"the primary goal here is to prevent deletions of articles, rather than improve them" — That's been clear for years. The KGB Archiver discussion just below is an excellent example. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

99% of Wikipedia's millions of articles are of less than good quality. We do not have the resources to make a significant impact on this. As we have limited resources, we must perforce work efficiently. The Pareto principle (or 80:20 rule) indicates that we will do most good by raising articles from the poor state in which deletion is contemplated up to a level at which they are secure from this. Typically this is done just by adding a couple of good sources which show the merit of the topic and provide more information. I tend to lose interest at that point because further work is just a matter of recapitulating what's in the sources and this adds little value. As one tries to raise the quality of the article, one increasingly gets bogged down in unproductive disputes over minor differences of content and style. So, I plan to continue to work on the low-hanging fruit and will only go further for topics of particular personal interest. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That would depend entirely on what you think a good outcome is, yes? And for what it's worth, in my experience most of the articles that through AFD don't have anyone actively working on them, and, as in the case of the KGB Archiver article, there's essentially no discussion over style or content if you make a pass to improve it. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal above seemed to be to encourage teamwork - having multiple editors working upon the same article to to raise its quality. But, as soon as you do this, you will get the problem of two cooks in one kitchen and disputes will tend to arise. And if just one editor focusses upon an article for a while, you tend to get the similar problem of ownership. But I don't want to be too negative. If there should seem to be a case where teamwork would be especially efficacious then feel free to invite me. But be careful what you wish for .... :) Colonel Warden (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you and I would get along fine in a tag team--I think we're both thick skinned enough to handle it. But if you really wanted some fun we could invite OrangeMike as well. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Our Colonel is near the mark; we do not have the resources [clueful editors] to properly maintain Wikipedia's millions of articles in anything above a poor state. Please stop endlessly inflating the project with inappropriate subtopics of the important topics and fighting tooth and nail to keep everything. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a rescue "squadron", not an improvement "squadron". Improvement of already notable articles belongs to Wikiprojects, and rightly so, since they collect a focused group of editors. Here my understanding is that of performing a more basic task: preventing notable and reasonable stuff from being deleted only because it is in a precarious state. This doesn't mean you're wrong in general, Nuujinn, quite the contrary: what you say is simply what WP should be everyday. But that is not the focus of this group. --Cyclopia^talk 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. But I think that so long as this group focuses solely on that one aspect, it will be subject to criticism that it's really just a canvassing group of inclusionists. I don't think that's true, myself, since as Silver points out, any group is just a collection of individuals with their own interests and approaches.

And to be clear, I'm not talking about improvement of already notable articles, I'm talking about trying to shepherd articles that have rescued, much as animal rescue does. But if the folks here aren't interested in getting involved in article improvement, then I would suggest that if we rescue an article that needs additional work, what might be appropriate would be to put a copyedit template ({{Copyedit}}), at least that way the guild of copy editors will take a look at it. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Animal rescue is an apt metaphor, I suspect. Personally, I'd just as soon euthanize all abandoned animals and redirect the funds towards helping human beings, because that's my value system. But I don't have that say, because the folks who donate to animal rescue have the right to invest their money in line with their belief system, not mine. If I were to sit around and constantly and loudly complain that spaying dogs and cats was stealing food from orphan children, then I'd sound a lot more like the critics of the ARS. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I do do content work, it's just that I enjoy adding references far more than writing material. And since the problem in most AfDs are that references are lacking, I work there, so I get two things done at once, I save an article and also improve it with references. I mean, I spent a considerable amount of time yesterday working on referencing Warrior, when it had no references at all when I began doing so. Silverseren^C 23:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Muir Skate

This article is at the end of it's AfD and it's not looking very good. It has three local sources, one national source (snippet), and one international source, but that isn't enough to the many deletionists attacking it. It seems like an easy save to me, but maybe I'm wrong about it's notability. Is the article notable to you guys? PÆon (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think articles are usually discussed here. Although no reason why they shouldn't be, this is how things are done on other Wikiprojects. I restored the reference to Concrete Wave, since that is a major magazine for this industry, and no reason for someone to have tried to delete that. [4] Dream Focus 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I already opined Lean Keep. Its a marginal article that could go either way, I did some searching and there's not much more to be done to rescue it.--Milowent (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the palaver over Tammy Jennings

Observe the amount of time wasted discussing deletion of the Tammy Jennings article, which was deleted because of blind adherence to WP policies, and then, as predicted, resurrected a few months later. More time was spent arguing about deletion than contributing to the article. cojoco (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got the touch...

Or rather, I have an incredibly cool set of databases at my disposal, now that I'm back in grad school. I was able to source a rather obscure television special currently at AfD (50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up) without needing to enlist the ARS' help at all.

So... if you've exhausted your resources and need some help, or can see something on Google News that's behind a paywall, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Be as specific as you can, and I'll get to the requests I can. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Awesome!--Milowent (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Wow, good to know. --Cyclopia^talk 11:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A new hater

User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire. Oy vey.--Milowent (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• *shrug* Anyone displaying that userbox is asking to get their comments deleted from AfDs as being in bad faith; it flat out says the user has formed an opinion prior to reviewing the merits of the individual article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe so. I'm not suggesting there is any action to be taken, as the user is entitled to his own opinions. But its annoyed to see an editor badmouth the improvement of articles. We could delete 1/2 the project and it would still be filled with articles needing much improvement.--Milowent (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments like this aren't likely to make them suddenly realise the error of their ways and join the ARS for an inclusionist group hug. When the ARS does good work, it does good work, and that's apparent on its face and doesn't need defending. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your 2nd statement. As to the 1st, I'm just providing important social feedback for the editor, though I don't intend to escalate it further. Last point about the whole userbox thing, anybody can nominate something for rescue, as we all know. For example, Oxford Today, which is clearly notable, is up for rescue; I would hope editors wouldn't just vote 'delete' on such articles.--Milowent (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• May I suggest next time, "As a productive member of the Article Rescue Squadron who edits in good faith, I find this userbox offensive and would prefer if you altered or deleted it," or "This userbox could be framed in a way that would be less aggressive, would you consider trying x"? Which, of course, doesn't preclude us from thinking he's being a jerk in private.  :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'll compromise and say something like that but in pirate-speak, e.g., "As aye old seadog o' th' Article Rescue Squadron who be editing in the Utmost Goode Faith, I find this userbox doubly offensive an' would prefer if ye altered or deleted it, an' be quick about it, ya scallywag!"--Milowent (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)