Article Rescue Squadron

This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Wikipedia articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron articles

This Wikiproject has been mentioned by several media organizations: James Gleick (8 August 2008). "Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists". Wall Street Journal. Nicholson Baker (20 March 2008). "The Charms of Wikipedia". New York Review of Books. Jennifer Schuessler (8 March 2008). "Gone to Deletopedia". New York Times. Adversus Wikipedia (17 September 2008). "Adversus Wikipedia". PC Actual. John Broughton (2008). "Ch.19 - Deleting Existing Articles". Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. O'Reilly.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

The new article about the Mercy dog is on the main page currently as a DYK. I'd not heard of these before and so found it quite interesting. The article is well written and so doesn't need any help but, as our mission is a another sort of rescue, other members may appreciate reading it too. And having dogs around is always a good thing, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I tweaked it and linked it (in and out). Didn't know about these dogs. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

150,000 page views. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• They tried to delete Kristoffer Domeij. They tried to delete his picture. But they failed and both appeared on the main page where they were seen by over 30,000 readers. In the top hooks of 2021, he joins the Mercy dog at the top of the chart. An inspirational team for the ARS!

But now the Mercy dog is being threatened again. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Germany-based editors with a subscription to WAZ to assist with clarification in AfD discussion regarding Laura Hoffmann Hmlarson (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:REX likely would get a response. -- GreenC 19:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Performance (textiles) SOSDD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I received notice of a discussion. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_is_getting_problematic 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, ARS may end up like WP:MEDCOM & WP:RFC/U, which would likely require an RFC at the appropriate Village Pump page. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Here Riding a rail. A story attributed to Abraham Lincoln has him quoting a victim of being ridden out of town on a rail as having said, "If it weren't for the honor of the thing, I'd just as soon it happened to someone else."^[1] Seriously. Walls of text on this project and various editors. An existential attack on WP:ARS. Review and comment if you will. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Maybe if you hadn’t been harboring a personality cult around perennially disruptive and uncivil user Andrew “The Colonel” Davidson we wouldn’t be discussing this. Dronebogus (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collegialithy and respect is a two way street. Just food for thought.

But we have not asked to discipline or disband or silence you or your compatriots. We did not go to WP:ANI.

You've already said your pieces at that page.

But censorship is something I oppose on principle. So feel free to contribute here, as far as I'm concerned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • My “compatriots” are an imaginary wiki-cabal. Yours are running this very project which everyone’s fighting about. Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI report, is the first time I've heard about ARS. I sometimes participate in AfD, MfD etc, etc. Personally, I've never felt any hostility (to my memory) from any editors, who didn't 'vote' the way I did. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not winners and losers. Full discussion and review helps. And when there is an outcome, one lives with it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I have spent most of my time on Wikipedia 'rescuing' articles that have been put up for deletion too hastily. During this time, I have been aware of the ARS but I have not joined the project. ARS seems to just focus on responding to WP:AfD discussions, with participants highlighting the discussions that they feel warrant attention. There are of course already compilations of pages up for deletion on Wikipedia and putting the spotlight on specific discussions seemed a little pointless.

The current debate at WP:ANI has revealed that this approach is problematic and has given some editors a negative impression of the project. I think that this project could be used in a much more positive way.

Proposal

Remove most if not all of the deletion related (particularly AfD) content from the main project pages. ARS should be about rescuing articles about notable topics that require attention. Whether the article is up for deletion does not need to come into it.

In the future it would be great if the ARS could become part of the WP:BEFORE process as an WP:ATD, where editors who find an article that is not good enough in its current form, but that might be notable, could nominate it for improvement instead of deletion. There are plenty of articles that are nominated for deletion solely because they don't have sufficient references or are written badly. If this project collaborated with nominators more effectively articles could be sent here directly.

If there is consensus for this course of action I would be happy to join the project and help to enact this proposal! SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I self censor my votes. If I run across an AFD nomination, and I can't add sources and/or don't think it should be kept, I do not vote. My voting record will support that, and actually prove that most of the articles on which I vote are in fact kept. And it ordinarily is because the articles were improved, which is the basic point of WP:ARS. That it was kept and improved is a net plus for Wikipedia.

Purging the article improvers for a tactical advantage at AFDs is not in the long term best interests of Wikipedia.

Purging those who vote Keep at AFD and provide reasons (e.g., Andrew and Lightburst at the discussions; and 7&6=thirteen by improving the text and sourcing in the article itelf, and then linking at the AFD to to the improvement) does not help the AFD process produce a principled result.

If there is a consensus ot delete or merge, so be it. Reasonable minds may differ. TMMV.

Stifling voices with a prior restraint and purge of those with whom you disagree is bad for the encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - part 2

It may also be good etiquette for ARS members who find an AfD through the project, and go on to improve the article, to not vote in the discussion. They could just leave a comment that the article has been improved by the ARS. Improving an article normally triggers a vote 'reset' at AfD anyway and significantly improved articles are often kept. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 3

This is brainstorming. Find articles that were deleted months or years ago (eg. Deletionwiki) and redo from scratch -- if warranted. Advantages: gives time for the old AfD to cool off. Essentially same as HEY during an AfD, but doesn't trigger ire in the middle of an AfD. Doesn't require AfD participation which has negatives for attendees when done too often. Gives unlimited time to work on draft no 30-day window. Can have 100s open and working on at once. Could optionally work offline and move into Wiki if ready. Optionally use AfC for neutral approval. In the end, achieves same result as current ARS, only change is process. Only works if new article is HEY-level improvement. -- GreenC 03:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 4

One thing I've never understood is the interest in "rescuing" deleted or about-to-be deleted articles. Like Big John (dinosaur). Who cares about Big John? Why do people put so much effort into an article like that, yet those same people don't put effort into an article like Dinosaur or Triceratops. Many, many more readers read the Dinosaur article (100k page views) than Big John (dinosaur) (less than 2k). Who gives a damn if Big John has its own page, or is just listed on a list of fossils... why put so much effort into something of so little notability and interest while ignoring the much more important related article? It makes no sense to me. There are so many articles that aren't deleted that need improvement.

Nothing important is lost when these marginally-notable articles get deleted. Deletion doesn't erase knowledge, it just moves it to a different page. If Big John (dinosaur) were deleted, it's not like Wikipedia would not cover Big John, or some meaningful information about dinosaurs would be lost to the world. It would just be on a different page. Why fight it so hard? Editors get themselves sanctioned fighting to save a tiny hill (Big John) but totally ignore the giant mountain (Dinosaur). The thing everyone can do to help is to improve articles that people actually read, instead of being so focused on stopping or undoing deletion.

In other words, stop trying to rescue articles as if "articles" were something special. As if a web page merited rescuing. That it's a separate article, or a separate web page, is just a feature of an organization system. It's the content that matters not the web page. Instead of rescuing articles, rescue content, no matter what page it's on. Did Big John (dinosaur) get deleted? Then let's make sure Big John is covered well on the appropriate page. Don't fight tooth and nail with your colleagues over how the encyclopedia is organized (what info is on a separate page and what info is merged on the same page): instead, work to preserve the content itself rather than the organizational structure of the content. Levivich 14:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, who cares that there is an article at Big John (dinosaur), so that these deletion discussions go on for days and pages. One thing I've never understood is the interest in deleting articles when there are lots of WP:RS sources and there is interest in the readership communnity. Easily meets WP:GNG. WP:Preserve. AFD notices have links to all those souces for a reason. WP:Before should be done well, not pro forma. And article was improved substantially, showing the noncompliance. The weight of the verbiage on this "tiny hill" was posted by those favoring delete. And they put in a lot of effort to do it, and engaged in WP:Personal attacks. There was no harm in having this article. You should have given in to reason and effort.

Take your own advice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]