Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:ARS)
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Andrew Davidson in topic User:Dthomsen8
Welcome to the talk page of the Article Rescue Squadron.
If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please see Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Guide to saving articles.
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Article Rescue Squadron page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61Auto-archiving period: 91 days  |
 | Article Rescue Squadron | |||
| ||||
Frequently asked questions  To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.Article help Q: Can the Article rescue squadron (ARS) save my article from deletion?
A: Not exactly. First off, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article. Secondly, if an article meets Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sourcing it likely will not be deleted. There are also alternatives to deletion which may be appropriate. The project members will do what they can as time allows. We suggest that you reference Tips to help rescue articles and the Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles Q: Will ARS help fix the rest of article problems after the deletion discussion?
A: In theory, No. Often, however, individual members will assist after the discussion has closed. You may want to contact a related WikiProject to see if someone there can assist. Sometimes project members completely overhaul an article but in practice most changes are incremental, and you should take initiative to add sourcing and improve the article yourself. Many times other editors will post sources to the deletion discussion; if they meet our sourcing standards then feel free to apply them to the article. Scope Q: Does ARS work to rescue other content on Wikipedia (other than articles)?
A: While articles remain our main focus, poorly-formed encyclopedia content can be found in other namespaces. If content up for deletion, such as a template or image, is poorly-formed and you feel it can be fixed, go ahead and add it to the Rescue list, to request the ARS' consideration. Please be aware that unlike articles, templates and categories often change and are renamed to serve our readers. Q: Does ARS contribute to guideline and policy discussions?
A: Similar to articles, policies and content are not exclusively controlled by any individual(s). If you think ARS should know about a policy discussion you can post a neutral notification, such as, "There is a discussion about topic at _____." on the ARS Talk page. Avoid even the appearance of telling anyone how to think or vote in the discussion— it's very important to keep the message neutral when inviting people to participate. See WP:Canvassing for clarification regarding appropriate discussion notifications. Q: What if I object to what the ARS is doing?
A: ARS is no different from any of the hundreds of Wikiprojects in that we collaborate to improve Wikipedia. We are a maintenance Wikiproject, and as such our scope is not subject-focused (like a WikiProject focused on a specific sport, country or profession), as much as policy-focused to determine if content adheres to Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and notability. We try to determine if an article meets Wikipedia's notability guidleines as well as is it verifiable to reliable sources. We're also apt to suggest merging, listifying, redirecting and deleting as appropriate. Notifying the Article Rescue Squadron is essentially a means to request assistance with an article or content that one feels meets notability guidelines, or should be retained for other reasons. The goal is to improve articles and other content, to benefit our readers. All are welcome to help ARS improve the encyclopedia, just as at any of the other WikiProjects, which encompass a variety of views and interests. No canvassing Q: Does this project canvass editors to keep articles?
A: No. The goal of the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is to clean up content that would otherwise be deleted. By necessity, this involves examining the deletion discussion to see what the problems with the article are, and then remedying them. If done correctly, this article cleanup improves the encyclopedia. If an article nominated for deletion is improved and retained on Wikipedia by this process, vis-à-vis addressing a nominator's concerns, the nominator hasn't "lost". Rather, the encyclopedia has won. Using this talk page Q:What about identifying and pointing out specific users who are nominating a lot of articles for deletion without apparent due cause?
This talk page is for co-ordinating matters related to this project's purpose, which is rescuing content on notable topics from deletion. This is not a forum for dispute resolution. If there are issues with an individual user, talk to them personally or make a report or request at an appropriate noticeboard. |
 | This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | Article Rescue Squadron was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 March 2014. |
Daily Dozen Doughnut Company edit
Hello! The Daily Dozen Doughnut Company article was recently deleted per AfD (2nd nomination). The close was endorsed after this deletion review discussion. However, I've requested to have the article content restored to Draft:Daily Dozen Doughnut Company.
I think I'll let the dust settle a bit before revisiting this draft article, but, I'm curious if this article would be of interest to members of this project. I would very much welcome assistance with identifying more in-depth coverage and/or improving the entry further. I have no idea what main space restoration might look like, if ever possible, but I'll put this on the project's radar nonetheless, just in case.
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Reminds me of a certain Pittsburgh toy store (long story). With that many sources, and well developed prose and length, if this still didn't convince people, I don't know what else would. These types of small local business articles have always been in the dog house on Wikipedia, particularly among editors from outside the USA who don't know the difference between Seattle and Cincinnati. Almost need an over-the-top source like a profile in the NYT calling it the best doughnut shop in the country, to get past the biases against local small business notability. Sorry this one got deleted, a real waste IMO, this is precisely the type of topic Wikipedia is good at. -- GreenC 03:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I must have missed where the NYT called it the best donut shop in the country. Please link (and quote if it's a closed source). EEng 17:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I must have missed .. the point about a hypothetical NYT piece. To which you reply "No kidding, really?" or something. FWIW I never participated in any of these AfDs or DRVs nor ever heard of this fine doughnut dining establishment until yesterday so I have no particular jelly in this that would require warning shots across the bow. I did just take a look at the source analysis table you made. Those sorts of tables are usually flawed because RS is often based on subjective opinions because many sources have pros and cons and you have to weigh them both not just the cons. It's difficult to do when the table contains a binary outcome, the outcome should be left to the reader based on the pro and con evidence. Otherwise it's leading the reader to a preferred outcome. -- GreenC 17:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm embarrassed to say I somehow misread your post as "Especially with a profile in the NYT ..." Put it down to holiday drinking. As for the table, I didn't set it up -- someone else did, though I did join in annotating it once it became the center of attention. My habit is simply to enumerate and quote the sources, and give my personal opinion, but leaving (as you say) other editors to decide for themselves. The table does have the unfortunate effect of making it seem like "a decision has been made". EEng 19:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I must have missed .. the point about a hypothetical NYT piece. To which you reply "No kidding, really?" or something. FWIW I never participated in any of these AfDs or DRVs nor ever heard of this fine doughnut dining establishment until yesterday so I have no particular jelly in this that would require warning shots across the bow. I did just take a look at the source analysis table you made. Those sorts of tables are usually flawed because RS is often based on subjective opinions because many sources have pros and cons and you have to weigh them both not just the cons. It's difficult to do when the table contains a binary outcome, the outcome should be left to the reader based on the pro and con evidence. Otherwise it's leading the reader to a preferred outcome. -- GreenC 17:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I must have missed where the NYT called it the best donut shop in the country. Please link (and quote if it's a closed source). EEng 17:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree! The AfD discussion was a complete mess and spawned dozens of side discussions, some of which were related to editor behavior concerns. I'm confident the article will exist in the main space at some point in the future, but I don't know the best way to go about restoration (nor am I in a rush). I welcome draft improvements and talk page discussions. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the GreenC that the deletion was a shame. A weakness with Wikipedia is that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can IAR. The relevant guide was WP:NTEMP but it was ignored. Nothing in our guides requires nationwide or international RS. Also an AfD had just concluded, and another was immediately placed - we have seen as many as 9 back to back AfDs in the past - we probably need to have a policy against the repeated renomination - we have an essay about it WP:RENOM and our guideline WP:DELAFD are ignored. Another Believer sorry that your articles appear to be targeted. I appreciate your articles. Lightburst (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's a lot of bullshit. NTEMP simply clarifies that it's a mistake to think that notability requires that coverage be ongoing; nobody in the discussion raised such a mistaken idea. The problem was, and remains, that despite repeated pleas no one can point to three (or even two) substantial, independent sources, even local ones. (People arguing that coverage has to be national or something were indeed misguided.) As far as RENOM is concerned, I agree there should have been no renomination -- instead, the close of the first AfD, which was done by someone who didn't know what he was doing, should simply have been overturned. EEng 20:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- @EEng: Scope_Creep made just such an argument in an AfD - I looked at several of his noms. He said he nominated restaurant articles because of the absence of "post-existance references that show that people are talking about them after they are gone." That seems to be the exact opposite of our guideline for NTEMP. Also about the first AfD, I do not think the first AfD close could not have been closed any other way. Lightburst (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- To my lasting shame, this is the second time I've blundered in this thread, and I'm going to blame it on my laptop being down so I'm forced to work from my stupid phone with its teensy screen. You're right, scope_creep did make that argument, and as you'll see here I promptly set him straight [1]. However, other than that the entire argument was about sigcov, and the close addressed that only, so no harm no foul. Any time you want to tell me what are the two or three best notability-qualifying sources, I'm all ears. EEng 06:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @EEng:. I am glad that you came here and discussed. Your comments to Scope_Creep were right on! Bravo! Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- To my lasting shame, this is the second time I've blundered in this thread, and I'm going to blame it on my laptop being down so I'm forced to work from my stupid phone with its teensy screen. You're right, scope_creep did make that argument, and as you'll see here I promptly set him straight [1]. However, other than that the entire argument was about sigcov, and the close addressed that only, so no harm no foul. Any time you want to tell me what are the two or three best notability-qualifying sources, I'm all ears. EEng 06:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @EEng: Scope_Creep made just such an argument in an AfD - I looked at several of his noms. He said he nominated restaurant articles because of the absence of "post-existance references that show that people are talking about them after they are gone." That seems to be the exact opposite of our guideline for NTEMP. Also about the first AfD, I do not think the first AfD close could not have been closed any other way. Lightburst (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's a lot of bullshit. NTEMP simply clarifies that it's a mistake to think that notability requires that coverage be ongoing; nobody in the discussion raised such a mistaken idea. The problem was, and remains, that despite repeated pleas no one can point to three (or even two) substantial, independent sources, even local ones. (People arguing that coverage has to be national or something were indeed misguided.) As far as RENOM is concerned, I agree there should have been no renomination -- instead, the close of the first AfD, which was done by someone who didn't know what he was doing, should simply have been overturned. EEng 20:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the GreenC that the deletion was a shame. A weakness with Wikipedia is that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can IAR. The relevant guide was WP:NTEMP but it was ignored. Nothing in our guides requires nationwide or international RS. Also an AfD had just concluded, and another was immediately placed - we have seen as many as 9 back to back AfDs in the past - we probably need to have a policy against the repeated renomination - we have an essay about it WP:RENOM and our guideline WP:DELAFD are ignored. Another Believer sorry that your articles appear to be targeted. I appreciate your articles. Lightburst (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I am at a loss to understand how editors think a forthcoming album discussed in numerous sources and listed on "most anticipated album" lists is non-notable, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Her Burn is underway. If there is something missing in the content or construction of this article, please let me know. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Notice edit
There are a good number of fighting game characters being sent to AfD and merged, for not having sources. I figured that this may be important to this WikiProject, since you may be able to find sources and save some of the articles. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Addition to "Tips to help rescue articles" section edit
Today, I added to Tips section:
- Check 1,000 articles at Shortest biographies of living people, updated daily. All are in need of improvement.
If this information should be relocated elsewhere within the Rescue WP project page, please feel free to move. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
This article has great references and is one of the biggest music licensing and stock footage companies in the world. In addition, they are an Israeli startup. I think the article is being attacked in AFD and would like some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.153.142.52 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Deceased Wikipedian and member of ARS: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-07-17/Obituary. -- GreenC 11:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- He was active during the earliest days of ARS. His first contribution was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cope Truss and Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list/Archive_1#Cope_Truss. -- GreenC 11:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I only just saw the sad news and came here to share but find that GreenC has taken care of it. I met David when he came to London for the Wikimania in 2014 and was impressed by his enthusiasm and good nature. He gave me one of his trademark Wikipedia Editor caps which I wore to many editathons but it went astray at a WikiData event in Cambridge and so I need a replacement. Perhaps we should get some ARS merchandise made now? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)