Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

I added a tag to Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer, but one editor keeps trying to delete it

Resolved

– Those interested in improving the article are welcome to help. If we need to have a meaningful discussion regarding removing the tag then let's separate it from this case which is conflating the issues to a personal level. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lucifer_and_the_Biscuit_Hammer Does one person have the right to declare an article beyond rescue, and delete the Rescue tag? Has that ever happened before? I tried speaking to him on his talk page, explaining that it could be saved, but he decided it couldn't, and has twice thus far removed the tag. Since it has been published in a notable magazine for years now, and then reprinted and sold separately in Japan as well as Taiwan, and has a rather large unlicensed English fanbase out there reading it and thus providing its a popular manga series, I think it could be saved. Please share your opinions. Dream Focus 00:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily think that anyone else removing it is proper, might you want to consider removing it yourself? This is pretty much Collectonians area of expertise, if she thinks it's not possible to find references for the article then it might indeed not be not be possible to find references for the article. Artw (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian tries to delete anything that doesn't have notable third party references. This includes recently a bestselling and classic novel http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Just_David And there are plenty of times in the past when something that didn't meet that ridiculous requirement were saved anyway. Dream Focus 01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Refrain from commenting on the user per WP:NPA. Please only comment on the edits themselves. Further, I was the original nominator for deletion, not Collectonian. I did not consult Collectonian for this deletion. I would prefer that you avoid attacking Collectonian. If someone must inspire your ire for this deletion request, please let it be me. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

TBH My experience with Collectorian outside of Animemanga has been pretty similar, however this is an area they are pretty familiar with and do a lot of work referencing and expanding. Anyhow, just a thought, I didn't want to set up a fightg or anything. If you beleive the article can be rescued then the tag should remain. Artw (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Two things in response to NocturneNoir's post.

I wasn't attacking Collectonian. Just responding to the comment that she is an expert, and if she couldn't find references, it was unlikely others could. I thus pointed to an article she nominated before, which every other person there voted Keep, despite it not having any reviews in third party media. That's relevant here. You don't need references for an article to survive, if common sense says it is a bestseller.
And I don't mind someone nominating or stating they think something should be deleted, that their right, I just don't see any reason for someone to be deleting the rescue tags. Reading her comment in her edit as to why, makes me wonder. Was she angry that after the rescue tags were added at the previous article, so many people from here went and posted a snow Keep, and thus she decided to stop that from happening again? Anyway, its over at the Administrator Noticeboard now. I've been reported for reverting their vandalism of tag removal. See how that turns out. Dream Focus 05:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter how much of a best seller a book is we will need independent sources. This is because we need something to base our article on. In the AfD you linked such sources was provided. As for removing the rescue tag, we have no authority to deny such removals, although as Benjiboi points out the removal usually serves little purpose. Taemyr (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. We've been down this road before, Afd is a community process. At the end of a, hopefully fruitful and productive, discussion an uninvolved editor makes an assessment that can go multiple ways. By removing the {{rescue}} tag one editor has unilaterally decided that an article can simply not be rescued which seems unproductive and counter to this project and our goals. That is to bring multiple editors' energy to a discussion. Despite evidence, we are all human and we all sometimes make mistakes. A few rescues I've done were after a string of "delete"s. We hope to match up the right editor(s) so that an article can be rescued but ARS is not a magic wand. If we can help we usually will, if we can't there is little harm in having an extra tag that will also be deleted. -- Banjeboi 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

DreamFocus, the purpose of the tag is to get more eyes on the article, to clean it up and reference it. The template is not "This is obviously notable, please come vote keep," it's "This article does not show the notability of the subject matter well, please improve it to do so." If your goal is not to see the article improved in this way, just bring the force of other users to enforce your common sense, then please refrain from using the template at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is improved compared to what it was at the time of its nomination(for instance: the Japanese name is correct and thus searchable). I was hoping someone who spoke Japanese could find some notable mention of it in a third party reference, or find a list of the sales figures. I do not put a rescue tag on every single article I try to save. Assume good faith. Dream Focus 13:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"You don't need references for an article to survive, if common sense says it is a bestseller."

This is unambiguous.

"Was she angry that after the rescue tags were added at the previous article, so many people from here went and posted a snow Keep, and thus she decided to stop that from happening again?"

This is speculation as to the bad faith of Collectonian. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

She didn't remove the rescue tag at the last article, it basically the same thing. No notable third party references, didn't meet any criteria. How many people went there because of the rescue tag, and then stated it should be kept, which it was? Why delete it this time, with the comment in her edit "not salvagable; per Rescue groups REAL goals, should not be added". What does she mean by "real goals"? She wasn't the first to try to delete it, but that comment just sounds suspicious to me. It could have two meanings though, so perhaps not. Anyway, we should probably keep that chat over there. Dream Focus 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"How many people went there because of the rescue tag, and then stated it should be kept..." - that's rather indicative of what the rescue tag is being used for, isn't it? If I was to analyse how many tagged articles had been improved by ARS members, and how many had just voted "Keep", I wonder what I would find? Black Kite 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't know: [1] [2] [3] - only three recent examples you should know. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I couldn't care less what happens to that AfD any more. You're welcome to it. Black Kite 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I had my own article tagged for deletion once, with a rescue tag placed there, but no one came to save it. People just go and then decide on their own if it should be kept. The bit you quoted, is from my stating why that editor might remove it, if they didn't want any new editors coming in that might disagree with them. Many seem to assume we vote stack, which we clearly do not. I personally try to visit everything on the list, and then contribute to the discussion, asking questions, looking for references, and whatnot. Anyway, Black Kite, getting mad that some disagree with you on the notable songs guideline being met by notable cover bands, is no reason to post "oh, fuck off" in your summary edit here. That was rather uncalled for. Dream Focus 22:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It was wrong of me, however given that Hexachord has assumed bad faith of me in three different locations now (here, the AfD, and on my talkpage) I don't think it was particularly uncalled for, to be honest. Black Kite 22:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any faith in Wikipedia anymore - which has not especially to do with you. I understand your early close, but I do not understand this delete and recreate thing at all. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know (or really care) what you two are sniping at each other about, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't productive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this for fear of getting flamed but I see no positive outcome in this conversation. I suggest to anyone that they take it to a user's talk page if they feel like they have an opinion they wish to express regarding this issue or take it to the articles talk page if you wish to discuss this article specifically. I mean no offense to anyone involved and please accept my apology if you've taken offense to anything I've said. OlYeller^Talktome 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dashboard counter

The above count for "articles tagged for deletion" is way off, at the time of writing it showed "10,052" when the actual number is 514... Could someone please either correct the template, or remove it as dreadfully incorrect? Fram (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The template this is in is here: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Dashboard, the number is based on: {{PAGESINCAT:Articles for deletion}} Ikip (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone looked into this yet? -- Banjeboi 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it from the dashboard. Category counters are sometimes very unreliable, certainly when the pages it is based upon are regularly deleted (as is the case here). As long as we can't display a slightly reliable number (I don't mind the odd 100 more or less), it is better if we display nothing at all. Fram (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should fix it instead, it's meant to show the contrast between the two. -- Banjeboi 11:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

But when one of the two is completely wrong, it becomes pretty useless. If you can get it fixed, it can of course be reintroduced, although I don't believe that the comparison of the two figures says anything (some articles are kept without the ARS tagging, some articles are being deleted despite the ARS tagging: there is no obvious link between the number of tags and the number of AfD nominations or their validity: having fifty percnet tagged does not indicate a flaw in the AfD system, and having only one percent tagged does not indicate that the system works either). Fram (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It was created to show the contrast, and some perspective. It is after all only a dashboard tool to display a current status. I'm not sure if there are any other meaningful bits to add but personally I think it was interesting. -- Banjeboi 12:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting to fix this problem. Template_talk:Afd#Please_add_a_new_category_or_rename_the_old_one.3F Ikip (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

60 articles are now on the Article rescue squadron list

Wow, 60 articles on the list! Has the ARS ever had that many at one time?

I want to tell everyone thank you for their work in rescuing articles. I wish I had time to search all of those articles threatened with deletion and award barnstars to everyone that helped rescue an article by adding references. I have in a few cases, but there is just too many articles too save, and too much too do, in one day.

Please consider giving your fellow Article Squadron members a barnstar for there work. Wikipedia:ARS#Barnstars simply cut and paste the text from the "what to type" section. Ikip (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we perhaps suggest {{rescue}} not be added until there is a couple more deletes than keeps. E.g. List of the 100 wealthiest people was never going to need rescuing IMHO. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be opposed to that as the template is tied to the potential of the article not how the AfD is going. -- Banjeboi 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to wait until an AFD is complete to remove a rescue tag. It is often possible to tell that enough has been done. We might also consider removing a tag if the article seems to be a truly hopeless case. This is the principle of triage which is needed in real-world rescue situations. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

- We don't have to wait but I would discourage it. Firstly the AfD last less than a week so having more eyes on an article and its AfD probably isn't a bad thing. Secondly, we're wrong sometimes and sometimes articles that reasonably look beyond hope aren't. I'd rather err on leaving a template an extra few days than removing it. I suppose if we honestly though someone was abusing the template we could rollback all their work but I'm not sure we're there yet. -- Banjeboi 13:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with ARSbot

Resolved

I addressed this question on WP:VPT and on the creator of User:ARSBot:

The User:ARSBot adds articles tagged for rescue {{rescue}} to the talk page of WP:ARS, the problem is that these entries are never removed. For example, there are 86 articles listed now, but only 33 articles which actually have the template currently. Is there anyway the bot can also remove sections for a talk page when {{rescue}} is removed from the pages?

These aren't problems with ARSBot, I have been manually removing them with a closing summary. This is the only record of this project's work and a subpage is already there if someone is keen on removing items. -- Banjeboi 03:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like User_talk:ST47#User:ARSBot made some tweeks, thanks for the valuable input. Ikip (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Question from a prospective member

Hello, Article Rescue Squadron. In my experiences with AfDs and Deletionism in general, a sense of futility and isolation set in and finally led me to hang up the "Retirement" sign. I've been lurking around in my retirement, however, and came across this project, and think it's a great idea. One of the irritating things, when I saw a clearly inappropriate Afd-- which I would see about once a day-- was that there are no consequences for the nominator. Those who wish to save the article do all the work that the nominator should have done-- if he really cares about improving Wikipedia-- and that work is usually rewarded by nothing more than maybe not seeing perfectly good material removed. So here's my question: Do you guys have any kind of a "Barnstar" to "reward" these guys who are abusing the AfD process to let them know that their "work" is being noticed? "Worst AfD nomination of the week / month / year?" or something like that? "Most number of AfD nominations within one category?" "Most repeat-nominations for a single article?" Or would this be considered "disruptive" (as if abuse of the AfD system were not disruptive...) Anyway, I'm looking around, and might join you guys later, if you'll have me. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that sort of thing tend to be seen as abusive. If you feel an editor is abusing the AfD system, or interpreting the AfD process in a disruptive way the correct way to proceed is first to discuss the issue with the editor, then to post at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or begin a RfC on his conduct. In addition, although this is just my opinion and one not shared by most project members, fragrantly bad AfD noms are outside of scope for this project. If there is no reason for deletion, there is no improvement to the article that will qualify as rescue. Taemyr (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Harassing the deletionists is out? :-( OK, I took a stab at the article on the top of your list: The God That Failed (song). Is this the kind of thing the project does? Dekkappai (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. And yes. Taemyr (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been considering creating something like a {{uw-badafd}} series of user warning templates, though, with pointers to WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. There are user warning templates for using dashes incorrectly, so I see no reason why submitters of the poorest AfDs should be immune from constructive criticism. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think anything like that is going to look like an attack. What would be cool is if some bot would keep track of AfDs, who nominated them, and their deletion percentage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Any template has a sense of impersonalness that can be viewed as hostile. Look through WP:UWT and see if there isn't room for such a template amongst others such as {{uw-italicize}} and {{uw-preview}}. It would have to be worded appropriately, but there's nothing intrinsically more hostile with such a template than any of the others. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Such a template would also likely violate the don't template the regulars concept. Any meaningful change, IMHO, needs to be policy based - either in clearly sussing out what policies define as AfD abuse and how to respond to alleged abuse - or changing policies to define what is abusive and remedies for addressing the concerns.

The bot-tracking of AfDs on its surface sounds good, but would need to be highly refined. Ultimately it would be, IMHO, a badge of honor, for some users, and unlikely deterrent for the rest. I would also be concerned that someone would in any way game the systems so their numbers registered one way or another. I am interested to see what others think about what would actually deter bad AfDs from coming down the pipeline. If we change a step in the nomination process or otherwise tweak the system will it resolve the issue or just re-align where the problems are at? For instance if most AfD's are instead encouraged to prod first - just an idea here - in theory many articles would be deleted that no one is watching or cares enough about. In turn a whole wing of prod-watching would emerge so is it really a good solution? -- Banjeboi 02:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ta da! It's beta and it doesn't quite get merges right, but there you go. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That was scary quick! If it could give totals it might be more meaningful and frankly this leads to having List of editors by AfDs with sortable columns for Keep's, Delete's, no-consensus, merge and other. I bet that takes more tahn a few minutes! -- Banjeboi 02:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure that was from User:SQL, not me. I wouldn't know a regular expression from an elephant on stilts. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if an elephant on stilts is irregular the expressions of those around will likely be, too. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The bad-AfD "barnstar" is no doubt a bad idea. It would be taken as either a "personal attack", or as a badge of honor, depending on the humor of the deletionist so tagged... But the idea for it came about because of the total lack of a system of checks on the deletion/AfD system... People are free to nominate, basically, any article, as many times as they wish, without consequence (as long as they don't go too far overboard). If I follow what this project is doing, I was doing much the same thing on my own before I threw in the towel at Wikipedia. I was usually saving articles, too, but some of those articles were subsequently re-nominated by the original nominators. And, since by then I had come to see defending them as futile, and no one else stepped forward, they are gone now... With no possibility of any kind of repercussions for mass-nominating, multiple-nominating, "I don't like it" nominations, nominating without doing the slightest bit research, there is really no reason not to to nominate an article for deletion, if one is of that mindset... It just seems like a crazy system to me. Anyway, it looks like you guys have a good idea going here, and I'll try to do what little I can to help out when I am able. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

there is a pretty strong social pressure against renomination of articles which are basically unchanged and meet policy. This is distinct from articles which don't meet policy but get kept due to local consensus. I see plenty of AfD's closed under SPEEDY or SNOW because the nominator made a serial AfD from an otherwise good article. The system isn't perfect, but it basically works. We see very few articles that clearly meet guidelines deleted without review. Protonk (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about that - having saved a few articles that no one though were salvagable I wonder how many others were deleted because no one cared enough or had the spare hours within the set time frame. I love the prospect of the list of editors by AfD if SQL's tool can be modified for it. This might give inspiration for more systematic investigation. I can't remember who it was but I sharply recall a user who has a boasting of how many articles they had deleted - that seems like a terrible achievement when the goal is to create. I also think Jclemens idea about highlighting links that stress steps before an AfD and alternatives to AfD are also helpful. I disagree a template would be the way to go as outlined but unsure what a better option would be. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  - I know what you mean... I know absolutely nothing about Metallica, but just a simple look through a couple of book indexes, and I found a whole essay on the song that was up for deletion... And the article had apparently been successfully prodded before, and just escaped this time because the time had elapsed! I see that today a list I was involved in saving a couple times is now up for its sixth trial on the AfD chopping-block. I knew an editor who kept a trophy-wall of articles he had got deleted. In fact at one point he nominated the list I just mentioned. Like many deletionists, he is now an Admin... The sense of futility sets in, and I've finally just given up on that list. They can have it. I'll salvage the parts I wrote and cart them off to another Wiki-like project I'm involved in. Why continue scrounging around for sourcing, writing, and arguing against the deletion, when all they have to do is slap a tag on it, sit back and hope they hit a jackpot this time... and if not this time, there's always next?... I like the project you guys have set up here, but I'm beginning to get the same sinking feeling I had before I retired-- like I'm trying to bail out a sinking ship with a teacup... I don't think it is a system that works well most of the time. Good material is deleted on a regular basis unless someone steps in and devotes their time to working on someone else's article. (And don't even start on images! Within about half an hour, I could probably show you half a dozen deleted Fair Use or Public Domain film posters that have been wrongly deleted because the image description was not filled out so that a bot could read it.) I do think that the majority of editors here at Wikipedia are opposed to this overzealous deletion, but those who are in favor of it are usually the ones who gain positions of authority. Some sort of popular revolution against this deletionist free-for-all needs to get started. I hope someone wakes me up when it does... I'll be happy to join it. Until then, I'll devote my time to a project that craves more rather than less material from its editors. Dekkappai (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
such is the nature of the fight. It is always going to be it easier to delete than to improve, and the only defense the encyclopedia has against that is the persistence of people who do not give up. Perhaps not everyone can save an article a day, but almost anyone can save at least one a week. Of the 10000 or so articles at AfD a week, I'd say that about 1/2 will be hopeless, 1/4 will be kept, and 1/4 can be kept only if th y are improved. Thats 250 a week. 250 people each doing one a week can make the difference. I continue to be an optimist, and thing we have 3250 good and sensible people here. The ay to get more of them is to avoid alienating people. This is the othr side of NOT OWN -- it should be sen as meritorious to improve someone else's article a your own. this is our project, and they are all of them our articles.

Dekkkappai, nobody will throw out the deflationists for you. You can defeat the by improving some articles so thoroughly that they can go ahead an delete them. (And also by staying around to join in the defense of those that are good enough to pass.). i figure if we win half the time, that's a lot better than the alternative. The key to winning even half the time, of course, is selectivity-hence this project and the focus it can bring. 07:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)