Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lightburst (talk | contribs) at 01:55, 27 October 2021 (moved discussion from project area). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Misplaced Pages articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron

This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 13 November 2019, see discussion. Keep, 20 June 2019, see discussion. No consensus, 4 December 2012, see discussion. Speedy Keep, 7 February 2012, see discussion.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

Subject specific guideline for List articles

I believe we need a subject specific guideline page for list articles. Please look over my draft, and give me some feedback. User:Dream Focus/Wikipedia:Notability (lists) Dream Focus 12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't we already have this? Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many unresolved issues with lists - see this recent talk for instance - and in particular with WP:CSC#2. Lists of non-notable items are regularly deleted under WP:IINFO even if the topic itself is notable as a group, making it impossible to create an index to all related content that's covered somewhere at Misplaced Pages as sections of larger articles. Diego (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Today's article for improvement is... why is that there?

I just ignore it usually, but this is a bit ridiculous. It current says List of furniture types. All furniture types that exist are already on there, and it doesn't really need anything else done with it, so how can you improve it? Are these things just chose randomly by one person? That doesn't really go well with Rescuing articles in need. Dream Focus 08:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

2011 AFL Central & North-West England League results for the Huddersfield Rams

2011 AFL Central & North-West England League results for the Huddersfield Rams is going to be deleted unless there are objections. What do ARS members think about it? If you object, do it in that talk page. If not, tell me here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Jung Joon-Young

Jung Joon-Young this seems to be an article, but it is a complete mess. I don't know if it needs rescuing, deletion or strong advice/coaching for the editor. The Banner talk 22:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't bother reading through it, just fixed a broken ref, used reflinks twice on it, and did proper section dividers. Dream Focus 00:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it seems to be a legitimate article, perhaps even on a notable young Korean musician. Made a few copy-edits, tagged it... Much copyediting needed. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Now it looks like an article, although with a lot of work to do. The Banner talk 13:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Jovan Bubonja

Is Jovan Bubonja any more or less worthy of keeping than any other association football (aka soccer) player?--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Watch

I've added the rescue squad list to my watchlist and hope to participate more in the future as time allows. Wondering if there is there a way to be notified only when a new case is added. -- GreenC 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles Rescued.

Friends, I just now provided a reference to the article Gezim Kasapolli and removed deletion tag from the article Nalini Krishan as it had references to reliable sources.Skr15081997 (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper search engines by country

Misplaced Pages:Newspaper search engines by country. This is a start. Any feedback or modifications appreciated. -- GreenC 14:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

removed to talk

This information is unduly complicated for the average person who is not familiar with wikipedia, removed and moved to talk. Headtransplant (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC) {{Article Rescue Squadron Code of Conduct}} :''For additional article improvement listings, check out this project's ] and listings at ]'' This is a list and discussion of '''Misplaced Pages content for rescue consideration'''. When posting here, please be sure to: * First familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's guidelines for ] and ]. * Include specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Misplaced Pages, and any ideas to ] the content. * Sign posts with four tildes '''<nowiki>~~~~.

• Place the {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} template in Articles for deletion discussions, to notify editors about the listing here. The tag can be placed below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

The following templates can be used for articles listed here:

• *{{Find sources 3|Article name}} - Adds source search options
• *{{lagafd|Article name}} - Adds relevant links
• *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (Nth nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated N ≥ 4 times

</nowiki>

If you remove this from the page again, I will report you for vandalism. The instructions are there for a reason, and your inability to understand them is not legitimate grounds to remove them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your comments, I added {{underconstruction}} to the page. Please give me an hour to work on the page if that is okay. Thank you. Headtransplant (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not 'okay' - if you edit the page again without prior consensus, I will report the matter - you have already violated Misplaced Pages rules on edit-warring. Any changes should be proposed here first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Shutting down the project

Since active members normally just look at this list page, I'll post the notice here to get noticed. Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Propose_marking_Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_as_historical Some want to shut the project down claiming its dead, despite the fact people still come here and do great article saving work at times, like the example below. Share your opinions there please. Dream Focus 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC about proposed guideline amendment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the following text (or a variant thereof) be added to this page's guidelines: An editor who has already commented in an AFD discussion should not post the article under discussion to the rescue list, and an uninvolved editor who posts such an article here must refrain from commenting in the AFD discussion themselves except to issue a notification that the article has been posted to the rescue list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Per below, this proposal is withdrawn. It was clearly meant in good faith and would have solved some of the canvassing problems like at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Swamp monster, so I definitely don't feel I deserved the level of abuse some of this project's members have been giving me over it, but hopefully this will be the end of at least the harassment and personal attacks. Responding to said abuse has unfortunately taken up more time than I would have liked, and I didn't get around to figuring out how to formally withdraw a premature RFC, so if someone else could do that for me it would be most appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot believe that year after year the "ARS canvassing" trope is still resurfacing. This page is no canvassing: deletionists are welcome to put it on their watchlist and hawk ARS-listed AFDs as much as inclusionists. That said, the rationale behind such a bizarre requirement baffles me. Why should one list the article here and not comment on the AfD or viceversa? By which logic should this avoid !vote-stacking (at most, it would get 1 comment less)? Can't one have an articulated opinion on the AfD and ask ARS to have a look at it? The only rationale I can see is to force editors to choose between ARS notification and AFD involvement, basically crippling both. This is unnecessary and detrimental to the project. --cyclopia 00:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Attendance at AfD discussions is very weak nowadays and so it's good to encourage participation. Typically someone who posts an entry in the rescue list does so because they have looked at the article, reckon that it has potential and so want assistance in getting improvements made. This is reasonable because AfDs have a tight deadline and article improvement is hard work. Editors who have worked on a topic and become familiar with it should be free to comment in the discussion, like any other editor of the article. People who work on an article should obviously be free to !vote on its fate as discouraging improvement of the article would be disruptive because it would harm the encyclopedia. Andrew D. (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No. Just... no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is just total nonsense. There is no reason the person trying to get help improving the article wouldn't participate in the AFD. Dream Focus 04:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Yeah, but what about cases like this and this where the poster apparently has no ideas for how the articles can be improved, and basically just link to articles that happen to be at AFD? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Some people will check it out and if it can be helped, it will be. No restriction on who can ask for help here. Like all of Misplaced Pages, everyone is volunteer bases. Dream Focus 04:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as an unnecessary rule and complication. Legacypac (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support It's been several years since I was very active at AFD, but at that time ARS was pretty openly an a cancass board for raving inclusions--or at least that was my perception. Maybe it's not anymore--or maybe it still is, I haven't been paying much attention lately--either way the proposal seems like a reasonable suggestion for preventing canvassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs)

  What about other Wikiprojects? Do you think they should do the same? Dream Focus 02:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as this goes against the function and purpose of this list. Furthermore, the NOM is posting multiple comments that make it obvious they have an WP:AGENDA against this project's goals; trying to eliminate its interference entirely by accusing it of WP:CANVAS and asking for its removal. Quite the opposite. It takes far more work than casting a simple, thoughtless !vote as so many deletionists do. We need the help. To do article rescue, it takes reading, research and a literate response. I can only speak for myself, but before I comment, I usually add sources; mostly sources that should have been added by ANYBODY who did a WP:BEFORE. But they didn't get added; not by the article creator (possibly a novice editor) and more importantly not by the NOM, who if they can figure out how to nominate, should be skilled enough to try Google first. Still we are at a huge disadvantage because there are so many, unsubstantiated, repetitive, serial delete !votes to counteract that get posted on *fD lists on a daily basis. It takes one or two minutes to leave a path of destruction of such thoughtless !votes across a day's *fD list; no rationale required. "Me too." It could take considerably longer, possibly hours to research to help one needy article. How much knowledge is being lost every day? At times, it is the few heroic members of this project that give any glimmer of hope to retain even a small percentage of the content that gets attacked and later removed every single day. Misplaced Pages is not censored, except, of course, when content is deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@TrackInfo: Actually, my "agenda" is in favour of this project's (stated) goals: fixing problem articles, not !vote-stacking. The problem is that it is being used by involved editors to canvas people who agree with them, and are very obviously not interested in fixing the articles (they have been aggressively refusing to do so). That said, if you have read all my comments, I have no idea why you would bother !voting at all: I clearly said I would withdraw it unless it started garnering support. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I have no involvement in the articles you are nominating. My reaction is to the generic deletionist mindset. Every day I encounter overt stupidity, an echo chamber of serial mindless !votes, deceptive, secret tactics and wikilawyers who make a joke of confusing orderly discussion. What suffers is wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: I'm nominating articles now? What? That's news to me. I'm just trying to prevent canvassing and create a better encyclopedia -- this project is being, and has in the past been used to canvas keep !votes with the (false, in every case I checked, and the last one nominated by me was three years ago) veneer of "We are improving the articles to bring them up to standard". I don't consider myself a "deletionist" so I would appreciate your not painting me with the same brush as whoever it is you were actually talking about with your "AGENDA" talk above: I would appreciate your striking everything you wrote about me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, aggressively advocating for their deletion, you were not the NOM. That and your attitude toward this list clearly puts you in the deletionist camp. I don't otherwise know you. I make no assertions about you. But protecting this list is important. It gives us the opportunity to get other minds involved in rescuing articles. No editor can be an expert in all subject matters. I certainly know nothing about Poke. I have said in my user page for years, if you don't know what you are talking about, butt out. But that is not the case in these mindless !votes. So this list is a place to call for help; people who know how and where to find sources in unfamiliar subjects. Thank you for withdrawing your proposal. Trackinfo (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Again, no. It's been years since I "aggressively advocated" for any article's deletion. You are digging yourself into a hole here. I haven't even !voted delete in any current AFD. Please stop making these ridiculous accusations: accusations of misbehaviour made without evidence are personal attacks. Consider this your final warning. If my already-withdrawn RFC gets closed before you have a chance to strike your personal attacks, I will accept an apology and retraction (in the form "You are not a deletionist, you were not pushing a sinister agenda, you are not stupid, you have not been aggressively advocating for any article's deletion...") on my user talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, opposition to blatant canvassing and a distrust of insincere claims to wanting to fix articles rather than delete them doesn't "put" anyone in "the deletionist camp". You really need to drop this "us vs. them" attitude: we are all supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, not "fight" for our "camp" against "the other camp". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• This page has in the past been used for disruptive canvassing by editors who were involved in AFD discussions, and the same (or a weaker form of the same) appears to have happened recently. Whether or not such canvassing works (i.e., results in a clear consensus to "keep") would appear to be irrelevant, as AFDs can be closed as "no consensus" when the result is a 3-2 split in favour of deletion (even by non-admins without the authority to close as "delete"). Since the purpose of this project is for article improvement and not for !vote-stacking, this amendment should be uncontroversial, but since it's a hard and fast "rule" I'm proposing I figured doing so through an RFC would be better than doing so unilaterally. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• The proposer explained in this discussion that he's nursing a grudge about a 5 year old AFD. They should please see WP:STICK and WP:GETOVERIT. Andrew D. (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I seem to recall the opposite: I explained that I had been unaware of what had happened in the AFD five years ago until this week, and that I was confident that if I brought the page to AFD again now, without the worry about JoshuSasori socks hounding me off the project immediately the result would be different, so I was not holding a grudge. It should also be noted that, when asked to explain why you continued to expressed credulity towards the fringe claims espoused in that article (which is not something that was resolved five years ago and I am holding a grudge over -- your first involvement was this week), you (repeatedly) dodged the question. This seems like deliberate gaming of the system in order to prevent articles from being deleted/merged based solely on personal principle rather than correct adherence to WP:NOT. It should also be noted that the immediate impetus for my proposal coming now (rather than, say, six months from now) was not the discussion on VPMISC, but your own recent violation of the guidelines that are already on this page: you auto-opposed several AFDs (being the first to do so) and posted them here without nclud a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Misplaced Pages, any ideas to improve the content instead posting joke-y meta remarks, meaning that your posting them here served no purpose to the project beyond notifying watchers of this page that those articles were at AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I am no longer seeing this proposal going anywhere, but I don't want to withdraw it for at least another few hours since I publicized the RFC in several prominent fora and I don't want to give the impression of deliberately creating bogus proposals, annoying a bunch of people with them, and then withdrawing them before the majority of them get a chance to even tell me how I am wrong. If no one supports the proposal before tonight I'll probably strike it (and try to figure out how to prematurely close my own RFC).

I don't actually agree with the reasoning why my proposal wouldn't work (especially the ones that essentially amount to ad hominems against me), but I wouldn't be a good Wikipedian if I didn't know how to agree to disagree and be civil about it. At least one of the early "oppose" !votes (ironically the one that makes the least sense to me) is from a great contributor for whom I have the utmost respect, so I don't see this as any kind of "battle" between "deletionists" (or "haters") and "inclusionists", merely as a procedural matter over which I have a disagreement with some other contributors.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• @SarekOfVulcan: I am a bit surprised to see you opposing this proposal, and have half a mind to quote Captain Picard: "Sarek of Vulcan would never be afraid ..." :P Jokes aside, could you elaborate on what the specific problem with my proposal is? As demonstrated immediately above, the last several entries to be added to the rescue list serve no purpose but to tell watchers of the list that there are AFDs open, and were made by someone who had already strongly expressed a desire not to see the articles deleted/merged/userfied/etc.: yes, maybe strictly enforcing the guidelines that are already here (in this case, that you need to provide a coherent reason for not keeping and improving the pages) would make my proposed addition redundant, but still... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Cyclopia: But is hav an articulated opinion on the AfD and ask ARS to have a look at what has been happening the past 24 hours? It looks more like it's an editor who already clearly doesn't want the pages to be delete posting incoherent "joke-y" links to articles that are at AFD, with no purpose beyond getting potentially sympathetic editors to weigh in. The Dragonite article, for example, should be re-redirected automatically per BRD: the redirect was stable for four years, in accordance with a long-standing consensus regarding standalone entries on random pokemans: Andrew posted a link to a completely irrelevant humour essay about wikidragons, with no explanation of how the article could be improved to address the AFD concerns. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Repinging User:Cyclopia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at the time I posted most of the above, a few different AFDs had been mixed up in my mind. The Dragonite AFD would not actually be affected by my proposal, as Andrew had not (and still has not) edited the AFD page. Everything I wrote is still accurate and relevant, though, as I didn't actually say Andrew had commented on the Dragonite AFD, and he had !voted in the swamp monster AFD, and the content of his notification of that one is just as irrelevant (no ideas for improvement of the article, just a link to an article currently at AFD, and a joke-y comment), and in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Virtues (number and structure) which he stealth-linked in an entry on a separate page. I'm posting this clarification here so no one accuses me of deliberately distorting things. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just a brief note for the members of ARS... I think you do great work, BUT... because you focus on improving (or “rescuing”) articles AFTER they have been nominated for deletion, you will continue to be accused of canvassing (rightly or wrongly). To avoid such accusations, I would suggest a shift in the way you operate... to a focus on improving (or “rescuing”) articles BEFORE they are nominated for deletion. If you searched for articles needing improvement BEFORE they get nominated (thus preventing the nominations in the first place) your efforts would be much more appreciated and you would be lauded by the broader community. In other words, be PROACTIVE rather than REACTIVE. Just a thought for you to consider... All the best, and keep up the good work. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  Check the edit history of people. Many go around working on articles that aren't up for deletion all the time, even creating new articles. This wikiproject is to help rescue articles that are about to be deleted. Dream Focus 16:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I am sure they do... but what members of this project do as individuals does not change the perception that the ARS project (AS a project) is reactive rather than proactive. It is that reactive focus that opens the door to unfair accusations of canvassing. To avoid such accusations, the PROJECT (as a project, rather than as individuals) needs to focus on being more proactive. My comments were not about what you people do as individuals, but how your actions are perceived as a group. Of course, if you are content with your current reputation, you can always continue as you are. I am simply offering an outsider’s view and my advice. ‘Nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I'd be interested in any examples you could give of articles ARS recently "rescued" by doing the good work of cleaning them up and fixing their problems. To me it looks like they come in, !vote down the AFD, then walk away without ever fixing the article. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mottainai and the current Swamp monster entry on this project's page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope... not getting drawn into your petty squabbling... all I wanted to do was share an outsider’s thought about how this project could be more effective and avoid accusations of canvassing. Nothing more, nothing less. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• And Hijiri88, stop playing the victim here. You went posting all over the place making your ridiculous accusations, arguing nonstop with people, and got upset others didn't see things your way. The mention of the Swamp monster on the rescue page brought over a few who said keep, and others like yourself who want to delete it. Kindly stop making the canvassing accusation. Dream Focus 16:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Why can't you drop the off-topic personal attacks against me? your ridiculous accusations -- this meme is quite popular these days, but no evidence has ever shown up. arguing nonstop with people -- where? It looks like you're the one arguing nonstop at the swamp monster AFD. got upset others didn't see things your way -- where did I get upset? Where did things not go my way? Why did you choose to come back here eight hours after the proposal was already withdrawn and closed and get another string of digs in at be? If you don't drop the stick here, an ANI thread will be coming soon. You've been warned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your ridiculous accusations about canvassing, which the ARS does not do. You dragged this argument out in various places. I think I was clear enough. Dream Focus 22:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine, so what if I said you don't canvass, but you don't seem to be very happy about requests that you fulfill your project's stated goal of "improving the encyclopedia" either?

Anyway, the claim to ARS not canvassing seems dubious, when you suddenly showed up at VPM, a forum you had never edited before, to attack me having never interacted with me directly, and only once indirectly at the AFD that I happened to link there, five years ago, and when I asked you if you'd received an email notification that said AFD was mentioned at the village pump you blanked my message and attacked me in the edit summary. You still haven't answered that question, by the way. Even if ARS does not canvass !votes for AFDs, I find it hard to believe that it was just a pure coincidence that you happened to show up there at that exact time: there was no notification on your talk page, on the talk page of this project, or anywhere else I can see that you might have noticed it, and you weren't pinged.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not attack you in the edit summary, I simply looked at your edit history and your block record, and decided I didn't want to bother with you. My message at was "I don't really want to waste time with you. You seem to argue a lot with everyone, and its just not worth the effort)" You also posted a message quite recently at another user's talk page, and they just erased it and ignored you also . Dream Focus 23:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't answered: I asked a legitimate question (twice) and you've dodged it both times. Anyway, I'm done with you. Go improve the encyclopedia. That's what I intend to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't answer because it doesn't matter. Sometimes I check on what others are doing, click the contributions of the editor, see if anything interesting is going on. And if you want to improve the encyclopedia, remember that that involves working on articles not just trying to delete them. Dream Focus 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As I told another editor a little above here, I haven't tried to delete an article in years, but I guess that's good advice in general so I'll follow it. And I think you missed my point: I wasn't asking how you knew I "argue a lot with everyone"; I was asking how you came across the VPM discussion. You couldn't have been monitoring my contributions because you had no idea who I was (even if you remembered the 2013 AFD, it was opened under a sock account, Sarumaru the Poet (talk · contribs)). But if we're done here that's good. I'm going to go continue listing all the MYS poets. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: There are numerous projects focussed on article improvements such as WP:CLEANUP and WP:TAFI. The specific focus of the ARS is rescue from imminent danger. While we have lots of nominal members, few of them do much and so we don't have the resources to improve anything and everything. Motivation is the key and a tight focus is good for this, IMO. As an example of a more successful project see WP:WOMRED which has good participation because it has a strong focus. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"He who defends everything, defends nothing"

— Frederick the Great

@Blueboar:Thank you for your support and suggestions and agree with @Andrew Davidson:'s response. (I'm late for the discussion.) I was attempting "rescues" before I had even heard about ARS. Every project's deletion list is filled with little calls for help. Is every nomination a form of canvessing? Now I found this list. Sometimes I'm in task-driven mode (proactive), which includes creating new or adding to articles. Other times I'm in deadline-driven (reactive), trying to save articles in time by finding sources. We all know there is a big need for both. I usually find it easier to improve an existing article than starting from scratch. Using a fire department analogy (thanks to all those real firefighters!), you can do all the prevention you can, but you still want a fire department. Yet, you can't save everything, maybe there are pieces that can be salvaged. For WP, we also have the luxury of choosing and often I don't know if it will pass "Notability" when starting out; so I'm likely to vote, if I do, close to the deadline. So be it accidental, arson, controlled burn, or a false alarm, it is good to respond. StrayBolt (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: I don't see how restoring the above could be justified: I withdrew my proposal as a result of the harassment I was receiving from several of the more militant members of this project, and all but one of them continued to comment, inappropriately, even after the proposal was closed. If I recall correctly, I tolerated it at the time (even though I would have been wholly justified in blanking continued inappropriate discussion in a closed thread) because I thought protesting would just make things worse; but someone coming on four months later and saying you agree with the editor whose closest thing to an on-topic comment was this strikes me as needlessly disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You are still playing the victim claiming anyone who disagrees with you is "militant" and giving you "harassment". Anyone can post here if they wish, you can't get whinny every time someone disagrees with you. You erasing someone's comment was not acceptable, so GreenC reverting you was justified. Dream Focus 23:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You see, the above is exactly why I never wanted this discussion reopened, not in February immediately after User:Redrose64 closed it (pinging in a perhaps-vain attempt to get this whole thing "re-closed") and definitely now more than four months later. DF is the worst of the editors who engaged in vicious personal attacks against me above (in fact has refused to focus on content in any of my dozen or so interactions with him since), but he wasn't the only one, so solving this by opening an ANI thread to get him blocked (something that would not be difficult when he writes things like this on a near-daily basis) would not actually fix the problem with continuously commenting on this RFC months after it was withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

And there he goes again. Will someone please click on the link he provided and tell him he is blocking out reality? This is ridiculous. He goes to that AFD and starts arguing with me about unrelated things. Anyway, Hijiri88, you don't like this project, you already stated in multiple places you want it retired, you just argue with everyone in it constantly, why do you keep coming back here? Dream Focus 00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So... first you tell me I am out of mind -- by itself an outrageous personal attack for which you could be blocked -- then when asked to retract it you refuse, and now when I link the diff of said refusal you say I am blocking out reality? Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable, and continuing to do so despite multiple warnings is going to get you blocked. Seriously. Take the hint. I'm being much more merciful here than I have any reason to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You have no interest in this Wikiproject, you never have, you are just here to argue with people and spread lies about it. As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things? The only outrageous personal attacks I see are when you claim I'm guilty of plagiarism because I didn't paraphrase quite well enough in a few places. Either go to ANI or stop making idle threats. You know you are the one who kept following me around for awhile there, I trying to avoid you. You don't like this Wikiproject, you have no reason to be here. Dream Focus 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Listing "results" on the rescue list creating a false impression of more articles being rescued than not?

A bunch of recent listings seem to be put on here without a real possibility of "rescuing" the articles, as they are not in any real danger. The problem with this as I see it is that after the AFDs are closed the "result" gets posted on this list, often without an elaboration, except in cases where an article actually was improved and therefore "rescued", which gives the false impression that more AFDs listed here end in "keep" because of the efforts of the Article Rescue Squadron, when in reality of the last nine listings (all listings for the past month): three (this, this and this) were never really in danger of being deleted, one was withdrawn by the nom for non-content reasons (which were glossed over in the "result" statement here), one was deleted (without said result being noted here despite two other results being of more-recently closed AFDs being listed here in the four days since), one probably will be deleted, one ended in "no consensus", one may have theoretically been in danger but ended in "keep" after a small majority !vote, one was closed as "snow keep" (with the meaning obvious in the original close statement that WP:SNOW carried its original meaning of "there is no way in hell that this discussion is going to lead to deletion, so keep by default for now, maybe delete once the snow melts", but this was taken out of context when the result was listed here), and one ended in "keep" apparently thanks to post-AFD improvements (which were noted in the listing here).

Basically if the four that should not have been listed here because they were never in any danger of being deleted (the first three plus the Ragland article which would have been impossible to delete with or without ARS's involvement) had not been listed, we would be in a situation where the majority of listings here would end with deletion or with keeping by default for non-ARS-related reasons. Obviously banning the listing of "probable keeps and articles that don't look to be in danger" is out of the question (G.scaringi, who was clearly acting in good faith albeit under a flawed assumption that Japanese/Chinese/Tibetan readers watch this page, was responsible for half of them and believed there was a legitimate possibility of the Namloyak article being saved and the HPAC article being deleted), maybe it would be a good idea to amend the list's rules to either

• (a) disallow listing of results or
• (b) disallow selective listing of results (read: listing keeps but not deletes), listing of results that differ from the actual close wording (adding extra emphasis by writing "KEEP" in all caps, listing as "speedy keep" without giving the reason for such, etc.), or listing the results of separate related discussions that were never actually listed here (even if they took place on the same AFD page)?

Cases like this could also be dealt with by requiring verbatim adherence to the closing statement.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Another problem I noticed while researching the above proposal was that a number of the "result" statements, including some of the problematic "revisionist" ones, are not signed or dated, meaning the only way to find the diffs retroactively is either to hope the edit summary included the name of the article or to trawl through every single edit to the list. Obviously if these statements are not banned, we should at least make it a rule that they must be signed and dated like other talk comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• One of the articles you say had no chance of being deleted was one you actually saved. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Hyogo_Performing_Arts_Center had no one showing up who could search for references in Japanese until you arrived, you then convincing the nominator to withdraw. The only other person besides you and the nominator that participated showed up before you and stated "all we need is a Japanese speaker to verify that for us" after finding a lot of Google results, and then said KEEP after you arrived and showed proof of notability. It was nominated at 20:17, 20 May 2018 you posting first at 20:29, 27 May 2018, the seven day listing over, could've been closed at any moment. So yes, there was a high chance of it being deleted despite being a valid article, that happens quite often even with only one person saying it should be deleted. It was 19:26, 27 May 2018 when an editor who didn't comment in the AFD posted on the Rescue List "This article needs a Japanese speaking editor to establish notability. Can anyone help?" So the article was saved in the nick of time. So the list did make a difference then, as it has many times in the past. Note that six other Wikiprojects had been contacted the day it was nominated, including list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 01:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you honing in on that one? It's the least "battleground-y" of all the listings, in that there was an amicable disagreement between me and the AFD nominator, I explained why they were wrong, and they closed their own AFD as speedy keep. That I noticed the AFD as a result of it being posted to the rescue list is actually irrelevant to my point here -- that some of the "results" listings, but specifically not that one, seem problematic -- and even there I didn't actually work to improve the article: I did a super-superficial source check and !voted in the AFD without ever editing either article. If I was talking about MFDing this page then maybe you could bring up the "Look! We wouldn't have an article on this notable topic if it weren't for ARS!" but what I'm suggesting here is completely unrelated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, as I told GS, I could have been just as easily reached by a neutrally-worded message on WT:JAPAN, as could a bunch of other editors with similar ability to check for Japanese sources to me. If this had been done (and GS's response implied that is how it will work next time), then yes, there would have been no need to post it here as the article would not have been in danger of being deleted as anyone who reads Japanese could stick the name of the article into GNews or see the Kotobank link at the top of a general Google search. (As an aside, it seems really weird that this would be honed in on as it totally derails the narrative that has been built around me over the last few months that I am a "deletionist". :P ) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it was included at "list of Japan-related deletion discussions". They didn't respond. Dream Focus 09:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No message was posted on the WP:JAPAN talk page. I don't normally monitor the Japan-sorted AFDs, but I noticed it here and would have on WT:JAPAN. Anyway, are you deliberately honing in on this non-issue as an excuse not to comment on my actual proposal, or what? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't an issue why bring it up? And I'm ignoring your proposal because its too ridiculous to bother with. Oh no! I used capital letters, and that somehow in your mind sends a complicated message to everyone. Is there one person out there who agrees with this Hijiri88 that writing KEEP in capital letters had that effect on people? Dream Focus 10:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't an issue why bring it up? Because if I had selectively linked 8 of the 9 articles listed here in the last month rather than being comprehensive, you would have accused me of doing so deliberately (don't pretend you wouldn't have). And I'm ignoring your proposal because its too ridiculous to bother with. Oh no! I used capital letters, and that somehow in your mind sends a complicated message to everyone. Umm ... that's not my proposal -- did you actually read my proposal? You didn't read the diffs I linked here, but you also didn't claim you had. Is there one person out there who agrees with this Hijiri88 that writing KEEP in capital letters had that effect on people? Umm ... so ... are you going to comment on my proposal at any time? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You mention the capital letters KEEP in your proposal: listing of results that differ from the actual close wording (adding extra emphasis by writing "KEEP" in all caps. And you explained why on the other discussion thread so I linked to it. As for your (don't pretend you wouldn't have), I don't have to pretend, since its the truth, I would not have mentioned that since there was no reason to do so. I'm not some obsessed lunatic who follows someone around Misplaced Pages commenting on every little thing they do, or have ever done, certain everyone is out to get me, and arguing nonstop about nothing. Dream Focus 14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, I was required to mention the capital letters in my proposal because I was addressing every listing in the last month indiscriminately. As for your continued gross personal accusations against me ... maybe you should try ANI? It's rather inappropriate to make comments like that on a WikiProject talk page, on like three separate AFDs, and even a few article talk pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note that if something is deleted, you can tell because the name of it is now in red letters, impossible not to notice. So no reason to state the obvious. Anyone could post that it was deleted if they wanted to. Dream Focus 01:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(With regard to your edit summary) I didn't actually say there was a conspiracy. And if it's standard prodedure not to list results when the pages are deleted, how do you explain this? It looks to me like deliberate revisionism: the article was garbage, should been deleted, should never have been listed here, and yet you and Andrew both auto-!voted "keep" with completely bogus rationales, but you wrote here that actually the article wasn't deleted at all because all the content was still located at another page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We did not auto-vote, we gave legitimate reasons why it should exist. And as I stated "It closed as delete, but the basic information is at Dark Lady already. Just lost a paragraph". Why should I not mention that the same information is found elsewhere, minus the opening paragraph? Dream Focus 09:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, what is your opinion on my proposal? (a), (b) or neither, and if neither do you have an alternate proposal or a rationale for opposing? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem here. It's fine to list outcomes of AfDs here, and whether or not something gets capitalized is too trivial to care about. I don't see a need to change anything in this regard. I would not want to see anyone argue for "keep" on a page that has been nominated and does not merit keeping, if it were done just to "win" an "argument" or whatever (and I'm not claiming that this has happened), but that's unrelated to listing outcomes here. Nor do I see anything misleading in the sense of making it look like taking credit for the keeping of a page. Keeping a page that should be kept is a good thing, and it doesn't matter who takes credit for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• I think we are still experimenting on form so I don't think either should be "rules" (I would say procedure). The results are imperfect feedback but still useful and should be done for all listed. I copied what was written from the close since that was easier and accurate. Not sure if closer signature should be included, if so the results could be quoted or bulleted. Adding one's own signature is already in the procedure, but I often forget and there is no autosign. Adding other summaries (reasons, lessons, thanks,…) are okay for feedback. Content of the Rescue page should only be about how to rescue individual articles: initial templates (find sources,…), how to improve the article, methods of rescuing (like Hijiri88's posting in related project WT:JAPAN, finding in another encyclopedia, or searching in another language), and idiosyncrasies of that article (alternative names,…). Seeing the methods in action reinforces learning. All other discussions (why the article should be deleted, side comments, personal attacks,…) should be on the AfD, this talk page, somewhere else, or not at all. That's my opinion. StrayBolt (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Google Talk to Books

I'd never seen or heard of Google Talk to Books. It seems pretty useful for Misplaced Pages purposes. It takes search to the next level, using AI to better find results that may not be in a keyword search. -- GreenC 15:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There is too much WP:ABF in that section title, and there is already a standard notice of the MfD at the top of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The title has since been changed, which is good. It was originally "Deletionist revenge". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I call them for what they are. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Judge for yourselves. Res ipsa loquitor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment *Ongoing related discussion at ANI

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list

One does not have to be a prophet to see the writing on the wall. WP:Dead horse. Some see this as an ongoing course of conduct coordinated by a group. Draw your own conclusions. Rhymes with "no collusion." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Result was keep. Per the closer: "The result of the discussion was: keep. Heavy snow in forecast" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor conduct

This project has been under continuous criticism for quite some time. There are two passages in the instructions and "Code of Conduct" that, if followed, may help alleviate canvassing concerns and adhere to the core principle of article improvement:

• "Please be sure to follow our guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice." Although it is standard practice across the board to mention any project notifications that led you to a discussion, this is rarely followed here.
• "Include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Misplaced Pages, and any ideas to improve the content. Please ensure that your comment here is neutrally worded." Your rationale should not be a joke, pun or other attempt at humor. Neither should it be an explanation of why you believe it doesn't need improvement. Please limit entries to articles that you feel can be cleaned up or otherwise improved to address concerns raised at AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The first one was edit warred in by people not part of the project, they just getting together on someone's talk page, and coming over and forcing their way. No Misplaced Pages editor on any Wikiproject is required to do that, so no reason why we would be either. No reason for that to even be there, so someone who hasn't been reverted three times already please remove it. Dream Focus 19:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That spectacularly inaccurate description is referring to me. I've advocated "keep" at the MfD for the project page. Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You added in nonsense all regular members were against. after you discussed it with others on a talk page somewhere. They then came and edit warred it back in whenever someone who in the ARS tried to remove it. Check the history. I find it ridiculous that those not part of a project can edit war in a ridiculous rule that no one is ever going to follow nor should be required to. The edit summaries show you claiming it would prevent canvassing which you were certain was happening. Anyway, more people noticing this now, can someone just remove that nonsense? I think I reverted it three times already so can't do it again. Dream Focus 21:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be just up to regular members to decide. This affects the Misplaced Pages project beyond them. And this is not a regular Wikiproject, so that objection strikes me as a bit weak. It is a Wikiproject which is tasked with rescuing articles, with all that that implies. El_C 23:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

But it would be prudent, I think, for the Wikiproject regulars to come together and say something like: 'We know you have concerns regarding inclusionist-minded canvassing. That's not what we're about. But just to reassure you, we are willing to declare when we arrive at an XfD, that we were brought there via notification at our Wikiproject.' It just seems sensible, for the Wikiproject's own reputation. El_C 00:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Dream Focus brought up the point that the clause isn't enforceable, anyway. I honestly don't have a good response to that. El_C 00:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

No one else is required to reveal where or how they learned about an AfD. And there is already a rule for the addition of {{rescue list}} in the AfD so it's not like anything is hidden. On a personal level it is a bit of a privacy issue to document how and why I decided to participate on a page. Particularly in AfD where it can be used against you. -- GreenC 00:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I think most of the disagreement is about whether use of that template really is or really should be a rule. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not the kind of thing that needs to be enforced. But anyone who chooses not to bother with it is setting themselves up for accusations of canvassing. It seems a lot more prudent to just do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see there being a privacy issue, this is all happening on-wiki. El_C 00:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I said this at the now-closed ANI thread: There are certainly ways that the project can be seen as canvassing for keep, but there is also a very straightforward way to avoid any whiff of canvassing. Just post at the AfD that the AfD has been listed at the Rescue List. Then everything is transparent. (And I urge admins who close the discussions take that listing into account when evaluating consensus.)... In my opinion, having a project that "rescues" and fixes keep-able pages is a good thing, and it's just a matter of the conduct of individual editors. Really folks, just disclose at the AfD that you have listed the AfD at ARS, and then everyone will be a lot calmer. And that really sums up how I see it, in terms of the template. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

But GreenC said that this is already a rule (adding {{rescue list}} to XfDs). The question is should the Wikiproject make a pledge for individual editors to disclose if they saw an XfD listed at the Wikiproject itself. I'm open to persuasion. El_C 00:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The "rule" to which GreenC was referring is the sentence in the Code of Conduct that I added, about posting the template at listed AfDs. And again, I don't see it as a "rule" that needs to be enforced, but rather as something that is simply the prudent thing to do. If you don't do it, so be it, but don't be surprised if somebody complains that you canvassed. By the way, the past discussion about this issue is at Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 59#Accusations of canvassing placed in code of conduct template, where the history of what happened can be seen. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

If members of the Wikiproject pledge to that code of conduct, that will inspire a lot of confidence in the Wikiproject's legitimacy and good faith. El_C 01:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

And I don't even think that they need to pledge. Just make a good-faith effort to do it, instead of fighting it as if it were an attack on them. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Policy already requires the same thing as the current wording of the CoC, which has been stable for about a year. Removing it would not actually change the obligation on this project's membership to comply with policy, but the act of removing it would send a very poor message about how this project views said policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Kindly post whether it should be kept or erased and keep the discussion in the section above.

• "Please be sure to follow our guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice."
• Remove Dream Focus 03:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: Comments that do not provide a rationale or explanation are likely to be discounted. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What sort of nonsense is this? The discussion was up above, no one convincing the others with arguments so no reason to drag it out. This bit has been there for a year now and never once has it been followed nor will it ever be, nor can you enforce it. No Wikiproject is required to do this, never has been, and never will. Those who support it are against the project and constantly spreading false accusations of canvassing, which have been disproven time and again. The fact that members of a Wikiproject can't control what's on their own page, but those wishing to eliminate it can, is simply ridiculous. Dream Focus 16:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per my simultaneous comment above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think a straw poll will be helpful. Chances are only the editors who are already involved in this (minus Jytdog, who committed wiki-suicide last December because he was fed up with the project, deciding to go out with a bang by violating WP:OUT and getting site-banned by ArbCom for refusing to apologize -- going into detail to clarify that his ban had nothing whatsoever to do with ARS, canvassing, deletion, or anything of the sort) will comment, and we already know how all of us feel about the matter. This was, if I recall correctly, brought before the community in a fashion last year (I think it was on the talk page of a prominent admin, but I might be mistaken), with everyone who wasn't already an ARS member agreeing that the note about canvassing needed to stay in. Re-counting the same !votes with one or two new keepist "there is no canvassing" !votes added and Jytdog no longer around doesn't indicate a change in the previous community consensus on this matter so much as ... just that, one or two new anti-deletion voices wanting to be allowed violate the canvassing policy. (Also, both the recently-closed MFD and the recently-closed ANI had unanimous consensus among those who mentioned it that the page should stay and that posting here wasn't canvassing as long as the COC said what it did and this project's members followed it.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove It is not a "Guideline on canvassing." That assumes a fact that is erroneous. There is no WP:Canvassing.

When AFD postings are done on other projects, that fact is noted on the AFD discussion. We should do that too. We should be an open book.

It is an ethical and practical guideline, and if it is refactored to change its wording and emphasis, then I would support Keeping it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment As a matter of practice, I simply put the notice that it was listed here into an AFD discussion as soon as it is listed. It has nothing to do with canvassing, IMO. And I may or may not !Vote at the AFD; and that is not necessarily contemporaneous with the notice posting. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove People come across discussions in a variety of ways and there's no general requirement to explain how one found a discussion that one participates in. Doing so would be clutter which would tend to distract from the substantive points being made. The sentences in question are neither policy nor guideline and so should be dismissed per WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, Andrew has been called out in the past for a poor understanding of what constitutes "canvassing". Yeah, it's possible his comment (which didn't make a lot of sense and was mostly just an ad hominem against the OP) was just petty "revenge" against an editor he didn't like, but he did frame his comment as a "Not canvassing" !vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - In the interest of transparency. If there is a problem with WP:ARS participants piling on with non-policy-based or poorly-supported "Keep" !votes, this will help alert closing admins. This is something that the project should be in favor of since it would not affect editors who actually do the work of improving articles. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No one who is lazy/badfaithy enough to vote stack is going to be so conscientious as informing they read about it at ARS. -- GreenC 00:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep — absence of which has the danger of bringing the Wikiproject into disrepute. This should be an RfC, so that it isn't only an internal Wikiproject matter. El_C 16:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Remove It is unenforceable leading to bad faith assumptions and setting the stage for incriminating disruptions. It is a violation of privacy, no one else needs to reveal how or why they decide to participate in an AfD (I often see cases that must be discussed off-site but there is no way to know). There is already a suggestion to tag the AfD page when it gets included at ARS, no problem. Furthermore it does nothing to appease canvassing concerns, if anything it will inflame it by making an issue over it. Canvassing concerns about ARS are fundamentally bad faith assumptions, bad faith can never be appeased it will always exist. -- GreenC 16:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. This needs to be a community RfC. If the passage is removed based on this farcical "straw poll", I will open such an RfC myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Why do editors think they can come to a group...and force their version of a code of conduct on the groups participants? The fact that some of these same editors who make it their mission to undermine the credibility of the ARS - are then allowed to vote on the rules governing the ARS is complete foolishness. Members of a group agree to their own rules and code of conduct. User:GreenC has valid points about privacy, and good faith Ivotes. As an aside, I am quite proud of the ARS crew. Hold your heads high! The ARS is both collegial, and important. I am very happy that I am allowed to be a member of this group. User:Lightburst 21:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Why? WP:OWN. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:OAS? However this addition...is unenforceable and assumes bad faith. And there are those voting here who would destroy or remove the group if given the opportunity. My point is this kind of democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. User:Lightburst 22:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I definitely meant what I said. And just a few days ago I argued for keeping the project, when it was brought to MfD, so I'm hardly trying to shut it down. The bottom line is that everything at Misplaced Pages is subject to community consensus, and we never have subprojects that get to make their own rules in place of existing policies and guidelines. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove – And this part should be removed until we know the outcome of this poll. The addition of such dubious and problematic material needs to occur AFTER the discussion, not before. During a deletion discussion, the closer is supposed to assess the quality of the argument, not the number of votes. Looking at previous deletion discussions that Article Rescue Squadron has been involved in, it's clear that the focus is assessing notability and expanding content. That's what ARS does, that's what everyone else ought to do also, and that's what the closer of a deletion discussion should take into account. It's clear enough that the addition of the contentious text is a misguided attempt to "fix" an issue that unequivocally never existed in the first place.Worldlywise (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a highly counter-factual description of what actually happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Question. How is this straw poll going to be closed? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably doesn't matter. Seems apparent there isn't consensus one way or another, even if one takes a hard-line position of NC = Keep that neatly papers over a reality of lack of community support. Probably it needs to be refactored in a way that is more acceptable, the current version is too controversial is what this straw poll is showing. -- GreenC 16:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and I appreciate that answer. In my opinion, there is a lot of room for revising the contested material, and it would be more productive to work collaboratively on that. In the event that there are some sub-aspects of the wording where editors here continue to have no consensus, it could be very good to have a true RfC to get more input. If editors here are receptive to any of that, in place of continuing the straw poll, I would welcome that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If anyone expresses an interest in working on that in the next couple of days, that will be most appreciated. If not, I'm going to start a real RfC at the Village Pump. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion a community RfC at Village Pump would be the best way to set clear, agreed-upon expectations. –dlthewave ☎ 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The solution is to refactor the controversial portion so it is acceptable to all parties. To that end I have not seen any proposals or BRD diffs, no steps have been taken to resolve it, despite all the good arguments and points made here. If you are trying to push a favored position with a VP RFC, there is nothing more to be said other than "see you court". As many previous ANI/MFD/RFC have shown getting consensus for anything with this group is not terribly easy unless you also have support from regular members, since it is their co-operation that is required to make it work in practice. -- GreenC 16:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't want to see anyone in court. I'll create a first draft of possible revisions, in talk, within the next few days. And then we'll see where we go from there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Great. See also my comments below. There are two types of notification and we already do one. This poll was about removing the requirement for a second notification. -- GreenC 06:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep/retain Seems perfectly reasonable. pbp 23:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove It seems part of the problem is: Is this a list or a noticeboard? If we make it into a standard list like the other projects, then the standard "included" is the norm, without individuals saying where they saw it. If it is a noticeboard, I think some of them say you should post where you heard about it, but I am skeptical about how consistently editors do that. And what if you heard about it several places before editing it? Maybe the tools can help call out suspected "canvassing" in a consistent manner, be it for or against. StrayBolt (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Per Andrew D., this has no reason to be here. Naomi.piquette (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like a quite reasonable and rather minor step, especially given the concerns expressed above (and previously, many times over the years). I mean, even deletion sorting involves a post to the AfD page itself -- and in that case the uniting factor is interest in the topic, not interest in keeping articles. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• BTW as this would affect potentially a lot of AfDs, and given there have been many more public discussions about this project in the past, making this into an RfC rather than something only pagewatchers will see seems appropriate. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Without objection I would like to close this straw pool. It is causing confusion. The RFC isn't about informing the AfD, that is already being done and is uncontroversial. It is about additional secondary level notification requirement on a per-person basis ie. every person who !votes includes a statement that they came there because of ARS as part of their !vote. This in addition to the normal template notification that the AfD was included at the ARS noticeboard which is already done and non-controversial. The RfC is unclear about two levels of notification and many Keepers are !voting based on the understanding that there must be notification of any kind. Furthermore people seem freaked out about a "straw poll". It has gone off the rails. -- GreenC 05:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting that -- several of the !voters on both sides have made statements that make it clear they are talking about the content that was added last year. The present dispute essentially started when an editor removed virtually all the text that had been in the CoC since last March; very few are making a distinction between informing the AfD and individual AfD !voters mentioning that they came from ARS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The initial proposal does not make clear any of that history, which we can't assume everyone knows about, nor can we assume everyone !voting here understood there are two types of notifications: AFD-wide and personal disclosure. It actually has been a point of confusion, see threads below with Tryptofish. None of the Keepers made a recognition that notification is already being done, no one explains why there need to be TWO notifications, they only say there needs to be notification, but then ignore the fact notification are already done. -- GreenC 16:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Should the "Code of Conduct" be renamed?

Some editors say that they are troubled about the enforceability of the Code of Conduct. I don't really see the need for regarding it as something that needs to be "enforced". It's the kind of thing where it's sensible to follow it, but if you choose not to, that's a choice you can make (and not be surprised if other editors find fault with that choice). Would it be better to simply rename it? Perhaps to "Best Practices"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. And those who post a listing at ARS should be encouraged to contemporaneously put the notice at the AFD. It is best practice, and cuts down on the negative nattering. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would you consider it the best practice for every single editor to state they saw it on this list before going to the AFD? You know that's never going to happen. A notice that it is on the Rescue list is all that is required, and most do that anyway already, just like all Wikiprojects do. The other bit is just total nonsense and you know it. Dream Focus 21:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I never said that every single editor should say they saw it on the ARS list. What I thought I was saying was that the fact of its being on the list should be put on the AFD. That is all I meant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Should it be revised instead of deleting it?

I can see the point about stating that one saw the listing. Instead of deleting the sentence, would it make better sense to revise it? How about changing This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice, and use Template:Rescue list to something like This means, in part, that you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here.? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was to delete that one part of it. I thought I was clear enough when I suggested it. It already says to use Template:Rescue list, that not the part we're discussing. Dream Focus 21:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you were proposing to delete all of that, and just forgot the last part of the second sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what should be done. But as Dream Focus says, it already says this, so changing the wording would just add a duplication. -- GreenC 05:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate entries

I propose removing the following entries which are not focused on article improvement:

1. "Winter is coming" "I've just snow-closed this but it may just be the start and I don't want to get too involved for fear of spoilers as I've been saving the last episode. ARS members may want to patrol the topic like members of the Night's Watch on the Wall."
2. Battle Bag "What's in your battle bag when you turn out to rescue another article? It's good to think of a shortlist of policies, references and sources with a stock of canned text and templates for the recurring issues we encounter. We should start another tab for this here, as a checklist of good ideas and resources."
3. "Crush, Crumble, Chomp" "I've not seen the new Godzilla movie yet but suppose that the local real estate takes a pounding. Meanwhile, here in Misplaced Pages, someone is trying to knock down the towers of Jersey City!"

–dlthewave ☎ 18:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything posted appeals to a desire to save articles from deletion which implies article improvement. -- GreenC 18:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments like "someone is trying to knock down the towers of Jersey City" imply that the deletion nomination, not the state of the article, is the problem. This seems to be an attempt to "save" articles by bringing in Keep !votes, not a call to improve them. –dlthewave ☎ 19:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you are projecting your own reactions on the posted listings. You have zero evidence of the poster's intent. Nor do you have evidence of other user's reactions or intent.

Your unilateral removal of these was WP:Vandalism. Don't do it again! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone gone there and posted KEEP? Those articles are rather short. I went to one and suggested merging it with another article. So claiming that someone posting there leads to people going to keep, is incorrect and in bad faith. I've added things to the list before that got zero people to vote in the AFD at all. See Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Who_Will_Rock_You for an example of that. If no one can find sources the article gets deleted. And if you have a problem with that one editor who writes colorful descriptions when he post something, why not discuss it with him on his talk page? Dream Focus 19:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do indeed see two project participants who !voted "Keep" at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle bag without taking steps to improve the article. –dlthewave ☎ 22:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I did search for reliable sources but couldn't find anything new to add to the article. I did discuss without saying keep at first, then two days later when someone mentioned a category existed for things that were similar I said to KEEP and rename it and include those things to make a proper article. I didn't just show up and say KEEP and nothing else, nor do I ever do that. Dream Focus 09:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• dlthewave I too believe it is vandalism to revdel a user's additions - especially during a time when an ANI is open. At its worst it is vandalism and at best ill-advised. I sent you a dove anyway because I hope we find ourselves on the same side in the future User:Lightburst 20:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Thanks, I appreciate the thought. I understand why the deletion wasn't well received and I hope we can move past that to discuss the propriety of the entries themselves. –dlthewave ☎ 02:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that those entries violated the code of conduct as it existed before I even knew ARS was a thing. Editors posting here are, and apparently always have been, obliged to provide a valid reason for keeping the articles in question. The "winter is coming" one was not "appeal to a desire to save articles from deletion which implies article improvement", since those articles are all WP:ALLPLOT content-forks of pre-existing lists, with no evidence having ever been provided that the topics are notable out-of-universe. (And that's something I was also saying before I knew what ARS was.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Those instructions have no standing as policy or guideline and, per WP:NOTLAW, should be toned down if they don't represent what actually happens here. They are currently self-contradictory in that they want a reason why the topic should be kept but that the notification should be neutral. Urging reasons to keep is not neutral, is it, and so you can't have it both ways. My view is that listing an entry here is self-explanatory – it is implicitly a request that the topic should be considered for rescue. My usual approach is to suggest that working on the topic would be interesting and/or educational. It is a big challenge to work on an article which is at risk of deletion within a week and so editors need reasons to take this on. Andrew D. (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

None of these entries, including the new one "Epistemology of Misplaced Pages", provide any sort of rationale for why the article should be kept or ideas for improvement. How would editors be motivated to improve an article if you don't provide any of this information? It may not be your intent, but these entries often result in a barrage of "Keep" !votes with no actual improvement to the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to tell people "need help finding reliable sources to prove this article passes the notability guidelines" every single time. They know that already. Its what the Wikiproject is all about. And please show where this "barrage" of keep votes has appeared. The current list has articles that had no one go to vote keep in them and got deleted. No one ever votes without a reason. Dream Focus 19:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are votes without a reason. Keep & expand per above. No compliance with ]., Keep for reasons cited above. No compliance with ]. Saying as per above is not a policy based vote, its laziness. It the equivalent of saying "I want the article kept, so any reason someone can come up with is a good reason." And WP:BEFORE is not a reason to keep unless you can actually prove that there are sources and even then accusing someone of not complying with BEFORE is a WP:PERSONALATTACK and does not assume good faith.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Both of those links are the same editor,7&6=thirteen, who also added content to the articles in question. Dream Focus 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That I add content and vote at AFDs is my privilege. And the reasons and comments are factual, and get to say what I want. I note that overwhelmingly, when I get involved, the articles are improved (many go from WP:AFD to WP:DYK), and are Keeps. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So there is a lot more article improvement going on that you ignore. If those who propose WP:AFDs find all the relevant sources that wind up in the article, WP:Before would not be an issue. I don't presume to tell you how to vote of what to say at AFD discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes. I suppose you actually did WP:Before here.x If you did it, why did you AFD Hudson Greene? Given the present state of the article, indeed why have you not withdrawn the nomination? But that' a matter for your conscience; ride that into the ground if you will. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do no unilaterally remove other people's entries from the list. If there is a dispute, this is a consensus-based encyclopedia. Take a quick straw poll to see where consensus is about an entry. -- GreenC 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on this talk page

Without naming names or taking sides, I will say that the refactoring and removal of other contributor's comments on this page and on the list itself is unacceptable behavior in Misplaced Pages. Keep it up and I will go to WP:ANI. I will kill them all and let God sort it out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Jeez. Violent rhetoric much? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably the less this forum shows up at ANI the better. At some point disruption is the only concern and no one cares who is right or wrong, only that the disruption ceases. Normally this is done by blocking a page from editing which could be done to this group (again right or wrong doesn't matter - only that the disruption immediately ceases). Suggest that any disputes be done through consensus on this talk page with quick "yes/no" straw polls. -- GreenC 16:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I want this project to succeed. I trust we all do. If you aren't on board for success, find another project. It was only a metaphor, which some of you may not understand. Hopefully this got everyone's attention. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see the recent edit warring in the history of the list page (and I agree with those who say that it was perfectly OK to make that listing). But I don't see any recent reverting or refactoring on this talk page. Do I misunderstand something? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Everyone please vote on the code of conduct

In case you don't notice, I started a strawpoll in an above section Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Straw_Poll. The discussion seems to have died off so time to just make a decision. Dream Focus 03:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing

The "List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants" does not meet this project's goal of article improvement. The explanation "Gateway article to separate lists of all the world's cities. Listed alphabetically by name and by country. the related lists are up for deletion, too. I think this pivot point is useful to Misplaced Pages's readers and should be WP:Preserved. WP:Not paper and question about sourcing." is nothing more than someone's argument for why the article should be kept, and I consider it a form of canvassing. –dlthewave ☎ 12:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No "canvassing." What part of sourcing do you not understand. Clearly the deletion of scores of articles is within the scope this project. Your attempt to censor what can be posted here is unsupported by reason, rule or policy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not canvassing. 7&6=13 gave a rationale as is the practice of the members. So a member gives a rationale and it is canvassing...but I seem to remember you deleting the proposals by another member for not giving a rationale. Lightburst (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In part, because of the unique fact that this involved not just one article, but dozens, it required an explanation. A mere listing of the single article without comment would put the controversy into a false light, and deprive project members of vital information. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Suggested template revisions

Sorry that it took me a while to get this done, but here are my suggestions about the "Code" template. On the left is the present-day version, for ease of comparison. On the right are my suggested changes.

ARS Code of Conduct Note that this wikiproject is only intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting votes or vote-stacking. Be sure to follow the guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here. Focus on improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic notability by adding reliable-source references with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Misplaced Pages's deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to. || Project Best Practices Please note that WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron is a Wikiproject intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking. Please be sure to follow the guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here. Focus on improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic notability by adding reliable-source references with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Misplaced Pages's deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to.

I've made two changes: the title at the top of the template, and the wording in the controversial part. I hope that this is helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• For reference here it was before it was changed without consensus.

Project Code of conduct Please note that WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron is a Wikiproject intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking. Please be sure to follow our guideline on canvassing. Focus on improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic notability by adding reliable-source references with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Misplaced Pages's deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to.

Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I object very strongly that you describe that change as having been without consensus. That is untrue and gratuitously inflammatory. It was a controversial change, and did not have unanimous consent, but that is not at all the same thing. The discussion is at Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 59#Accusations of canvassing placed in code of conduct template. We can waste time relitigating that earlier discussion, or we can move forward and consider what I suggest here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You can object. However you displayed two templates. And you made them both. The one you posted on the left was allowed to stand. The one I posted (below your two) was before you altered it. Lightburst (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This needless personalization of every square inch of battleground is why this project attracts so much concern from other editors. I contributed to making the template shown first here, but I did not, by a mile, make those changes alone. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus by the Wikiproject members were against it, as you well know. You posted on a talk page with others complaining about the ARS, and you then all came over and edit warred it in. Just change it back already since you know no one is ever going to take your nonsense bit serious anyway. And we already had this discussion above. It already says to use the Template:Rescue list in AFD on the left of where this will appear, where it explains how to add things to the list. No reason having it in two places. At least you are finally willing to finally accept that the "This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice," nonsense should be eliminated, that what everyone was complaining about at the start, and throughout this long drawn out pointless debate. Dream Focus 00:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish I understand you feel you have the right to change the template the ARS. The members do not want this forced on them, and as Dream Focus has said, there is no way to enforce it. As it is every item placed on the rescue list gets a notification on the AfD.

A few weeks ago you forced this change on the group, and a straw poll was initiated: the poll was in favor of removing the changes you made (left template). So now you posted the template you forced on the group, and said do we want that one ...or another one you also made. I do not think my attitude is WP:BATTLEGROUND instead I am puzzled. Nearly everything on the project happens with consensus, so why is that not the case in this situation? As an act of good faith, you should return the template that you originally removed and then perhaps your two templates you posted above can be considered. Just a thought. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please get the facts right. A few weeks ago, I did nothing of the sort. A few weeks ago, someone else, not me, made some attempts to have this project shut down. I argued in favor of keeping the project. In the reaction against that stuff happening, a straw poll was started about the template.

And since I'm talking here about getting the facts right, you actually did not post, here, the version of the template that was in effect before the controversies started. You got that wrong. You need to look more carefully at the edit history, to find the version that preceded the changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• before it was changed without consensus is a bogus lie, by someone who showed up a full year after it had been changed in accordance with consensus and was stable, and started edit-warring over it. This lie should be retracted, and if not the editor should be page-banned to prevent further disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Lol Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Statements such as "Consensus by the Wikiproject members were against it" and "The members do not want this forced on them" imply that the opinions of "members" carry some special weight. The fact is that although wikiprojects have a certain level of autonomy, those who participate in the project or appear on the member list do not get do decide how WP:CANVASS and other guidelines apply to their activities. Since WP:ARS conduct directly affect our deletion process, it is entirely appropriate for this to be a community discussion. I would suggest posting this as an RfC at Village Pump after this discussion is complete. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support the "Project Best Practices" proposed by Tryptofish. It is helpful to have the specific expectation that folks post the Rescue List template at AfD instead of the nonspecific "follow the canvassing guideline" advice, and this version omits the controversial requirement that each editor mention they saw it at ARS. I would also suggest that this be ratified in some way by the community so that we can't use the "unenforceable" argument to later ignore whatever it is that we agree on. –dlthewave ☎ 16:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  The "unenforceable" argument I used was for the part you are suggesting eliminating now, since you can't force anyone to tell you what Wikiproject list they saw before going to an AFD. It has been ignored by everyone for over a year since its just ridiculous. As for the other bit, almost everyone already mentions when they added something to the Rescue List. From time to time I forget, then someone else adds it for me. Having the instructions on putting a notification in the AFD in two separate parts of the same page right next to one another, doesn't make it twice as likely someone will see and remember it. Dream Focus 18:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• I want to thank dlthewave for those very reasonable comments. Other editors, unfortunately, are continuing to rehash past grievances instead of discussing what I actually proposed. Ironically, what I have proposed goes in the direction that these editors seem to want, so I would have thought that it would have been seen as, at a minimum, a step in the right direction. Please look again. If not, I will indeed take this to the Village Pump as dlthewave said. It might be a lot more palatable to instead take "yes" for an answer here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - We should break up the list into two types. One should be a similar list to most other projects where the automated tools help adding AfDs to our list as well and adding the notification to the AfD. The other can be more freeform with ARS discussion. Also, Focus on improving content does not exclude arguing keep. There are bad AfDs like there are bad articles. We should also have some list of PRODs which can have the same results as an AfD, but without the consensus. StrayBolt (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Bad AFDs don't need ARS to fail. It's the Article Rescue Squadron -- showing up to !vote keep when the article was in no danger of being deleted to begin with isn't "rescuing" anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any real support from the active members of the project for making the changes that I suggested. I'm disappointed about that, because I would have thought that the changes would be seen as a step in the direction that active members of the project have been saying that they want. I guess that it would be best just to leave the Code as it currently is. Please note that I think that rolling it back to an earlier version should not happen unless a community consensus for doing so is gotten at the Village Pump or somewhere similar. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - because it is an improvement over the current and more in line with what I do. The diffs between the two are: Project Code of conduct -> Project Best Practices and disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice, and use Template:Rescue list. -> use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here.. I think this is more in line with the other Wikiproject AfD lists. No one has commented on making ARS have a standard AfD list. StrayBolt (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• After giving this some time and thinking it over, and taking into account StrayBolt's support as well as the implied views of other editors here, I've made this revision to the template: . I left the title as it was, as "Code of conduct", but I removed the controversial phrase about disclosing where one saw the notice. It seems to me that removing that part is something that a lot of editors want, and it's reasonable to remove it. So I figure the best thing to do was removing it, in the interests of putting to rest at least some of the controversies here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Erasing entries on the ARS list

• The erasure of entries continues. I posted a message on User:Dlthewave's talk page. The editor has erased entries from several ARS members in the past weeks. My entry was erased today with an edit summary accusing me of canvassing. The editor's actions have been disruptive. If the editor believes there is something wrong with an entry, reverting is the least-collegial method available. This constant disruption steals time from the actual work of building an encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree. It is not acceptable to erase someone's post like that. Dream Focus 04:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree. User:Dlthewave's conduct is disruptive to the project. If this pattern continues I promise I will personally take it to WP:ANI. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• I, too, would suggest not doing that. It would be better to take concerns to talk, instead. There is a real need to lower the degree of animosity around here. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  I agree, we should lower the animosity here. Stop people from coming to a project they don't contribute to and making false accusations constantly. Dream Focus 17:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for lowering the animosity. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• We can all try to be Kinder and gentler. However, that is a Two way street, and presumes that the disruption stops. If and when it continues, it needs to be called out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Kinder and gentler disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft

Can someone fix this draft up since there are some POV issues. Per WP:ATD, if not then chuck it. Draft:Ronald L Dart Josalm64rc (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, did you mean to link something? Lightburst (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Did you mean Draft:Ronald_L_Dart_Evangelistic_Association? Dream Focus 23:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Pick the best leave the rest

User:Lightburst said "Take a look at how many of our rescue list ended in delete". We can improve by picking articles for ARS that have a better chance of succeeding, triage. "Pick the best leave the rest" (squadron slogan). I think a good candidate will have historical significance (ie. not living people/companies), sources in books (Google Books and/or Archive.org books). Articles on general topics like "salt" or "horror novels made into movies" (made-up examples that are probably notable) I find less interesting and harder to defend then more specific topics like certain people, books, or events. These are only my opinions. -- GreenC 18:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@GreenC: makes sense. I do pick the harder ones. Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst's note on List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

The instructions on the project are a bit confusing to me: they tell editors to include a justification for why the content should be retained, but they also tell editors to make sure their notices are neutral and to comply with WP:CANVASS. I'm not sure how to thread that needle exactly, but User:Lightburst's thread, here, seems completely non-neutral. The edit summary and notice both frame it as "scrubbing dissenting voices" and rhetorically asks whether minority views should be "saved". It reads pretty clearly like a call to action for editors with a certain viewpoint, and it has no real bearing on any aspect of WP:GNG.

I was not familiar with this project previously, and I can see there has been a lot of contention here, but I've seen similar messages called out for campaigning in other venues. Nblund 01:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: this is not what WP:BRD is. You boldly edited, then you were reverted, now you should discuss. A simple solution would be to rephrase your message. Nblund 02:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Nblund: I am taking a break from this. When things go fast like this people get in trouble. I will not repost the article on the ARS list. I do not need to get in a scrap over contradictory listing advice. You have been pressing me here on the ARS list and on two separate AfDs tonight. And now an editor wants to delete the whole project and has twice reverted me. Time to take a step back. Feel free to erase the ARS notice on the article as well, I am not interested in fighting. My purpose is to work on the encyclopedia. No hard feelings on my part. Lightburst (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I collapsed the restored message and tried to offer a more neutral description that I hope captures your original message. I'm not interested in fighting either, but the previous message - to my mind - was inflammatory and mis-characterized the deletion discussion as an effort to "scrub" dissenting voices. Nblund 03:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• It doesn't much matter how these requests are framed as we are veterans here and so inured to rhetoric. The more that the issue is contested, the more attention it will attract per the Streisand effect. Note also that Nblund advertised their nomination at a forum which is not neutral on this topic. See WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. Note also that Nblund's user page states that "I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak while I finish a dissertation." See also procrastination and displacement activity. Andrew D. (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: this project is subject to the same rules on canvassing that everyone else is subject to. I posted a neutrally worded notice stating that an AFD had been opened in a thread where people were already discussing the article, that's not analogous. Your edit summary here seems misleading, since you unhatted the comment, and I'm not sure why you think it was an improvement over my attempt at a compromise. I definitely don't know what my user page has to do with anything. Nblund 15:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• No one has the right to erase someone's message. The message seems neutral to me. Dream Focus 00:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

How do you justify a message that says, Apparently the dissenting voices must be scrubbed from the internet. as "neutral"? jps (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

They are trying to delete a list of everyone who disagrees with the scientific consensus. The nominator list one reason for wanting it gone as "the article is congenitally WP:UNDUE because it gives an inflated impression of the amount of doubt among actual experts writing in actual academic venues." Many have stated in the discussion have stated such a reason as well, delete it because it might give people the wrong impression, don't want them to believe the dissenting voices should be taken seriously. So they do appear to want the dissenting voices scrubbed from the Misplaced Pages. Dream Focus 15:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe in that interpretation of the justification for deletion (I don't think the nominator does either, but I won't speak for them), yet I argued for a deletion of the article. So if it doesn't properly characterize my position and I am in the group referenced, how is the message neutral? jps (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

So some are deleting it for that reason, and others state other reasons. Perhaps he just saw the first bit and assumed that the reason why. If you take everything personally and want to go on a rage fit, edit warring, posting all over the place, , trying to delete the project in multiple venues , and whining nonstop, even suggesting banning three people from the project who disagree with you , then you are the one with the problem not us. Dream Focus 15:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: ජපස welcome to the talk page. It is hard for us all to build an encyclopedia when you are disruptively editing here. What Dream focus has described above sounds like the behavior of a new editor. However you have much experience on the project. I am asking you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Nobody here wants to fight. I did not want to report you anywhere, so I made multiple attempts to get you to come to the discussion. But you blanked my requests and continued the war against this project. It is clear from your repeated listing erasures and tinkering, your latest two forum shopping excursions and your MfD to delete the whole project, that you are engaging in disruptive editing. I hope we can all go back to building the encyclopedia. We are all wasting hours on this drama. It is hard to focus on the original reason for your anger after all of the drama that been generated by the disruptions. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

So y'all have no excuse for your non-neutral WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, huh? Good to know. I will be seeking to stop your actions in the future, fair warning. jps (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions on addressing canvassing complaints

Carrying over some comments from the recent AfD: I really do think this is a useful project, but there are several notices here that seem to cross the line in to canvassing. Obviously veteran participants in this project probably have a good idea of how to judge notability questions, but newer participants may not, and I think there are some easy ways to address those complaints without seriously affecting how the project operates:

1. The statement Include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Misplaced Pages invites non-neutral notices because it essentially tells editors to make a !keep argument in an announcement about an AfD. Users should probably be instructed to avoid making deletion arguments (and avoid commenting on the motivations of the nominators) and instead focus on the ways that the article can be improved rather than asserting that AfDs listed here are prima facie misguided.
2. Notices should not be removed unless they are clearly disruptive or inconsistent with the goals of the project, but editors should be willing to rephrase their notices if there are reasonable complaints about neutrality.

I think those changes would go a long way toward addressing the perennial complaints listed on the talk page here, but I'm open to alternative suggestions. Nblund 16:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to rephrase something because someone might allegedly misread it. Dream Focus 00:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Why wouldn't you rephrase an announcement that people were likely to misread? Editors should be willing to make reasonable adjustments to their announcements - this is basic collaborative editing. Nblund 00:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, you can probably see how, higher on this talk page, I've been involved in a lot of related discussions. Given that this project is, by design, about rescuing content, I think it stands to reason that the only deletion discussions that will be listed here are those that the editor making the listing believes are ones where rescuing is appropriate. And that's OK with me. In my opinion, the most significant protection against the appearance of canvassing is to disclose, at the deletion discussion, that the discussion has been listed here. Although it took a lot of heated discussion to reach an understanding about that, I actually think that the editors here have been doing a very good job with it. For example, at the top of the AfD that I think you are talking about here, I see that Lightburst quite appropriately put such a notice near the top of the AfD page. Myself, I appreciate that very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but the instruction asks posters to explicitly state what should be obvious, and I see several instances where the motivation of nominator are being questioned, which really doesn't look good. I think this is a valuable project, but I'm hesitant to participate here because the most public-facing part of the project looks hostile and partisan rather than collaborative. I don't want to post stuff here if it means editors are going to go to cast aspersions on the nominators and insult anyone who complains. Nblund 01:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Those are fair concerns. But no amount of rewording will change people's personalities. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't follow some simply rules we all follow. As I said below, it's particularly dumb since if it makes no difference, then why on earth can't people just follow the normal rules?

I made the exact same point when at least one editor at another wikiproject (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chess) seem to also feel they didn't have to follow the normal canvassing rules. Others suggested they weren't influenced by the canvassing anyway, so I pointed out in that case why don't you just follow the normal rules? AFAIK no one ever had an answer. But in that case at least, I got the impression that most who commented did at least appreciate that these were the rules they we expect to follow.

As we always say, the perception of unfairness tends to me harmful whether or not there is actual unfairness. So doing stuff which is seen as unfair by commenting in a way which is seen en as canvassing helps no one. This wikiproject is always going to receive perceptions it's votestacking. There's nothing that can completely avoid that. But there's no reason to compound that unease on the part of some, by adding campaigning in to it. You go from a situation where people may feel uneasy but accept there's nothing that can be done, to one where people can instead outline a clear area of unfairness that can be fixed relatively easily, but those involved are refusing to do so and so the others are naturally very unhappy.

I'd note that while this project by it's nature has it at an unavoidable extreme level, it isn't completely unique. For example, in most cases when an AFD is mentioned at WP:BLP/N the reason is because whoever it is thinks it needs to be deleted. In fact sometimes there is even discussion about deletion before someone nominates it. Still from what I've seen most people follow the normal canvassing rules when making notifications.

For that matter, while it's hardly simple, there is obviously a frequent view that comes from BLPN participants. While others aren't necessarily in agreement or happy about it, with RfCs and similar most seem to, maybe begrudgingly, accept it without too much complaint in part IMO because mostly the normal canvassing rules are followed. Heck although I dislike people pushing pseudoscience, I don't really agree with some of the stuff they do at WP:FTN. But even they seem to be mostly follow the normal canvassing rules.

I still have no idea why this project feels they need to be different. IMO it's definitely not helping anything, and is instead unnecessarily causing harm.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish, what is this nonsense about "Although it took a lot of heated discussion to reach an understanding about that"? Most of us always put the tag in the AFD to mention what wikiproject it was listed in, unless we forgot from time to time. All you did was edit war in some additional criteria that was totally ignored, unenforceable, and you finally removed. Dream Focus 03:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for always discussing things in such a calm and friendly manner. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Tryptofish #unnecessarydrama DF's statement was accurate, and we do not need to relitigate your templates. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• And here I thought they were the project's templates, and I sure don't want any relitigation. But as I said, people have the personalities that they have. And I still thank you for your helpful use of the template at AfD pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comments: Here are just a few successes.
• Elizabeth L. Gardner
• Richard Haine
• Trace Bundy
• Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident
• Daniella van Graas

Some of these took incredible effort.

There are a whole lot of failures because an article can be nominated for deletion many, many times. And if it gets recreated editors shout SALT like they are now on the article Nblund nominated. And there are very few active here (maybe 4) for the reasons you articulated Nblund. We have targets on our backs. We do our best. Lightburst (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

We have targets on our backs. I think the most recent MfD demonstrates that this is not even remotely true. There is broad support for the ideals of this project from a broad cross-section of Misplaced Pages editors, myself included. However: I would be extremely hesitant to list anything here, because it seems like the most active participants have adopted a bunker mentality that is not consistent with collaborative editing. Obviously, if the most active participants here are not interested in improving the tone, then I'm not going to have any chance of persuading you. That sucks. Nblund 01:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The trick is to just let it go and not cause disruption, as you say, "There is broad support" for this project, and it may sometimes target your AfD, but it is nothing personal. -- GreenC 15:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

...except, of course, when it is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hard to imagine such a petty mean-spirited person. -- GreenC 16:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88 Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural close that is how the MfD is closed. And it only went a few hours. But your animosity and assumptions along with the many others do not phase us. No amount of tinkering with the rules will change the assumptions and accusations. Carry on Nblund. All my best. Lightburst (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I've never understood why some people claim they are not influenced by canvassing and therefore we shouldn't worry about the obvious canvassing, but then refuse to follow normal canvassing rules the rest of us follow even though it allegedly makes no difference. If it makes no difference, then there is zero reason you can't just change how you handle things and stop doing stuff that is seen as canvassing. As with most others I think this project does decent work. But unfortunately, it also seems clear that editors here are unwilling to engage with reasonable attempts to stop the perception of canvassing. So I'm not going to get involved any more than this one message. But I will say, refusing to engage in reasonable discussion about problems with the way things are done is only going to harm this project, it always does. It isn't just evil deletionists trying to kill it. It's simply the wider community wanting everyone to follow the same canvassing rules.

  Note that although I am a deletionist, I hardly ever participate in any XfD. Although I'm sure I've said before I'm a deletionist, I suspect you'd have needed to look very hard to find evidence for it since it's nor mentioned on my user page. I'm primarily mentioning this to save the time of anyone who is going to waste their time looking into my history because they want to find a reason to ignore my comments because I'm clearly just some deletionist who hates you all. As that seems to be the way most here are treating any reasonable suggestions you should improve to stop being perceived as being involved in canvassing.

  (I actually find it fairly funny that people are saying it's not personal when the group gets involved with an AfD which I entirely agree would generally be the case. Because you all seem to be taking it very personally when anyone suggests this project needs to change the way they act so it's in line with the way we expect everyone to act.) This is not to say all actions by others here have been sensible or acceptable, e.g. the MfD was clearly just silly, but the mistakes made doesn't change the fact that there are clearly good reasons why people are concerned.

  You have 2 choices. Ignore the mistakes others may have made in their approach with you, and work with those who have pointed out problems with your approach to improve it so it's in line with what the community expects so that you get less complaints and concerns. Or continue to approach things in an unnecessarily adversarial way and completely ignoring such concerns simply because it's difficult to get a consensus from uninvolved parties about forcing you to do anything because frankly it's not worth our time so you're going to get away with it. The former will help aide you noble goals and ensure this project has far greater success, the latter does everyone a major disservice.

  Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

A lesson on why WP:ARS is important

Gigliol's Whale merged. There are lots more sources than our fellow editors bothered to find. an across the merger (belatedly).
The claim that there were no sources (except for 'Cryptid fandom') missed this scholarly article. Raynal, Michel; Rubis, Tour (1991). "Cetaceans with two dorsal fins" (PDF). Aquatic Mammals (17.1): 31–36. Retrieved December 15, 2019. Indeed, a routine search here at Google books shows lots of sources. Doesn't anybody bother to click on the links at the top of an AFD before they !vote? Or WP:Before they nominate for deletion? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

A perfect example of cetacean needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Wut, that is hilarious. Name checks out too. -- GreenC 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Prohibition of domains at WP:RSN

Ever since The Daily Mail RfC of 2017, when the site was prohibited, it started a precedent. Prior to this Misplaced Pages generally did not prohibit entire websites. Since then, domains have been prohibited on a regular basis, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for a partial list and note the steady growth with most prohibitions (aka deprecation) occurring in 2019. There is no system like AfD. Many of these websites should be banned, but all of them? Permanent prohibition or even blacklisting of websites is a worrisome trend because when there is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. At the very least we might create RfCs for carefully considered cases where no RfC is otherwise present. Doing this before prohibition, when discussions are still open, makes more sense then trying to overturn established consensus. -- GreenC 06:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing mentions and controversy

here 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Unusual edit in an AfD

I am confused by this edit in an AfD. In the end, it basically was reverted. Any thoughts? StrayBolt (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution history of the two claimed editors, and taking into account the way signatures are usually attached to edits, this looks like abuse of multiple accounts by a single user. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Berean Hunter, confirmed plus one. See this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

National Emergency Library

National Emergency Library. Internet Archive is making available 1.4 million modern books during the Coronovirus crisis, or end of June whichever is longer. The books are full-view no limits with unlimited checkout (but no d/l). Books can be searched like with Google Books on key words across the entire library. It works globally. -- GreenC 17:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

AFD discussion at the WP:Village Pump

• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Where to list Redirected articles?

I know this page is where to list articles that are up for deletion, but is there a place to list articles which have been redirected? I have been trying to find sources for video game articles Killer Bees!, and M*A*S*H (video game), and Sorcerer's Apprentice (Atari 2600) but no matter what I add they keep getting redirected with no explanation other than "No indication of notability". Can anyone help? 2601:249:8B80:4050:EDA7:14E1:E7C0:5A51 (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Robert S. Harris is currently a stub. Consider creating a sub-section forthe game Killer Bees! in that article and after it becomes too long it can be split out to separate article. It would help shore up the Harris article by adding more sources so that it is not deleted. To answer your question, any sort of page that might be rescued can be listed in the Noticeboard here. -- GreenC 23:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair point! I will see what else I can do for now. 2601:249:8B80:4050:EDA7:14E1:E7C0:5A51 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Doda

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Doda

Scores of articles in a proposed mass deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Predictions of the end of Misplaced Pages

'The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• AFD Reopened. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Article before the redirect.

And it's now been DELETED and REDIRECTED. here, Talk:Predictions of the end of Misplaced Pages: Revision history (Personal attack removed). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

WHAT!?!?! The AfD was deemed KEEP... twice. So why can Deacon Vorbis, who nominated the AfD, just override the community consensus? Normal Op (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been following this particular article or AfD, but I've never seen anyone just plain old revert everything to get their way. If Deacon Vorbis wants his way and didn't like the outcome of the AfD, then his next step would be Misplaced Pages:Deletion review which is for appealing disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions. I'm all for reverting his "override" and he can take it to Deletion Review if he wants. Normal Op (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it back and Deacon reverted my edit with a nonsense edit-summary ("the keep is for merging purposes of any ancillary info"). However, the closing statement was "The result was keep. Obvious consensus not to delete the content outright. Whether it should be merged or left alone is a question that can be answered outside of AfD." Normal Op (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted again. Deacon is Edit warring. Warning notice posted on his talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this the right place?

Is this the right place to list the article --> InnerSloth? The reason I'm asking is because it underwent massive research and expansion from previous state nominated for deletion to current state, post research and expansion project.

Also, 2nd question, separate question, might it be appropriate to ask for a "relist" somewhere, of the deletion discussion, due to the back-and-forth between editors, and also the article is essentially a totally different and expanded article after the research project that went into improving it?

Thank you, Right cite (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Is content supposedly of more interest to women being actively deleted from Misplaced Pages?

Read this academic research paper to find out: "Exploring Systematic Bias through Article Deletions on Misplaced Pages from a Behavioral Perspective". -- GreenC 04:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Another one of those deletions that beget a "Merger" proposal that is just revisiting the deletion

Here Predictions of the end of Misplaced Pages. This kind of event on this article seems ironic. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Tom Lister Jr.

Actor/wrestler/track star. Just died. Working on WP:ITN. Not in danger of being deleted, but extra sets of hands and eyes could help. Stay safe out there. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ITN is dead. Perverse result due to sourcing issues. I had similar experiences with Dr. John and Neil Peart. Large articles and prolific important artists; who got willfully ignored at ITN because the vast list of their works did not have sourcing that satisfied the cabal. And both of them got a huge amount of views.

But this article got 110,000 views in the last two days here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

208,000 in seven days. Popular article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I've often thought, one could spend years researching and writing a book that sells 10,000 copies if lucky (typical for books) .. or make a Misplaced Pages article in a few days that has 10k view per month or year, forever. Even if 80% are drive-by or bots etc.. still a large audience are reading your work. -- GreenC 15:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Outcomes

Beccaynr Why do you keep making incorrect statements of AFD outcomes like this: ? The result was No Consensus so why did you put it as Keep? Or here, where you changed the results from No Consensus to Keep: and ? Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist I have been doing what I observed in a previous archive template and adding information to the "status" field of archive templates, which appears to refer to the 'status' of the articles after the AfD discussion. There is a separate field in the archive template for "result," where I have been adding what is said by the AfD closer. When there is No Consensus, the status of the article is Keep, even though the result of the discussion is No Consensus. I have figured that this is at least part of why it makes sense to have two separate fields in the archive template, so both the status of the article and the result of the discussion can be clear. Please let me know if you have any further questions and if you do not plan to change the archive templates back to reflect my explanation; I am sorry that you did not wait to discuss this before making the change to the templates again, because I believe there is a logical explanation related to the archive template that explains why there are two separate fields with two separate functions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is no such explanation for why there are fields for status and result and I don't see why No Consensus should be stated as Keep if NC was the outcome of the AFD, where is this stated in the guidance? Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find guidance beyond the past precedent of how the template has been used; I also think there is a logic in the plain meaning of "status" as compared to "reason" (I referred to this field incorrectly as 'result' in my previous comment). The 'reason' field includes the outcome of the AfD, which might be 'speedy keep,' 'keep,' or 'no consensus,' which all result in an article status of 'keep' after the AfD. There are two fields in the template, and 'status' displays as a grey bar, allowing for a fast review, while the 'reason' field displays the details from the closer. I am trying to help the page be readable and consistent; the plain meaning of the fields and the way they have been used is why I filled them in like I did. I hope this clarifies things and that we can agree that the status fields should display the status of the article after the AfD. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm pinging @Andrew Davidson, GreenC, Dream Focus, and BOZ: because they are recent and regular participants at ARS, and maybe we can develop a consensus about how to proceed with the "status" field in the archive template. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a problem IMO. Keep up the good work! WP:Don't feed the trolls. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and I was just working out how to ping you, having discovered that your username doesn't ping in the usual way. Beccaynr (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Being as new as I am to ARS, I am trying to figure out whether I have been using the "status" field in the archive template in the way it is designed, when I use it to indicate the status of the article after the AfD, and then use the "reason" field to include information from the closer. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The template serves no purpose other than a visual aid when viewing the page. I've seen it done both ways. Do as you please. Could even say "Keep (no-consensus)" to cover all bases. -- GreenC 22:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - my preference is to keep the 'status' field simple and limited to the article status after the AFD, whether it is Keep, Delete, Merge, or Redirect, and then have the 'reason' field highlight whether it was speedy keep, procedural keep, keep, no consensus, delete, etc., and the reasoning from the closer. I have been trying to perform a housekeeping function on the page, so I wanted to follow up after being told that I was doing something incorrectly. Beccaynr (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any valid reason for the status field differing from the reason. The argument that keeping the status field simple lacks merit when you're talking about one versus two words. Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea is to indicate the status of the article after the AfD discussion. It's not an argument. 'Status' has a different meaning than 'reason,' so I think it works best to use the 'status' field to indicate the status of the article after the AfD, and the 'reason' field to indicate the details as to why. It is not clear to me why you think it should be otherwise, but please feel free to clarify your reasoning. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Because for all other outcomes the status is just the outcome of the AFD, i.e. an abbreviated version of the reason, so there is no logic to No Consensus being any different. Mztourist (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

An abbreviated version of "No Consensus" is "Keep," similar to how an abbreviated version of "Speedy Keep" and "Procedural Keep" is "Keep." It all results in the same outcome for the article. "Merge" and "Redirect" are different, but "Delete" and "Speedy Delete" are the same. This is ARS, and we are keeping track of rescued articles, which also seems to help explain the logic of an archive template field that records whether articles are kept, merged, redirected, or deleted after the AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Abbreviation is misleading, Procedural Keep is not the same as Keep and No Consensus is not the same as Keep, the effect may be that the page is kept but the reasons are very different and that should be abundantly clear. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

They are made abundantly clear in the "reason" field. I feel like your concerns are addressed by the way I have filled in the ARS archive templates, because it is not misleading to indicate the status of the article after the AfD, when the reason from the closer is also included. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

And I hope this clarifies this issue - I initially posted archive templates that you then changed, and after I changed them back with a brief explanation, you changed them again before we could discuss it. I would like to avoid having this continue to happen. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, as a follow up, I just added an archive template that seems to be a clear "no consensus" status, because the reason left by the closer indicates that discussion is ongoing about whether to keep a standalone page or merge it, even though there is a consensus to not delete. I think that given this example, the 'No Consensus' status should be used when it helps alert readers to instances when discussion is ongoing, after the AfD closes. My concern is that if 'No Consensus' is used for both open and closed discussions, it could dilute the helpfulness of the field. Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The summary should only be used when the AFD has closed, so there should be no "open discussions". As with all other results, No Consensus should be clearly stated, not changed to Keep. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for not linking to the Native Plants Journal entry to make it easier to see what I was referring to. This is an example of where the "No Consensus" status field indicates a true "No Consensus" status, and there is more current work for ARS because a discussion is continuing to occur, as noted by the closer in their reason. Due to this example, I believe that my original interpretation of marking closed discussions as "Keep" when the article is kept after a 'No Consensus' AfD is more clearly an important distinction to make to help support the work of ARS. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

As I keep saying, No Consensus is not Keep. If the AFD result is No Consensus that should be shown as status with the reason set out. Mztourist (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the issue is what best supports the work of ARS, and I have explained my reasoning and analysis in detail to support my conclusion. Beccaynr (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

See my comment above. A Troll diet is not making this a more effective group. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As usual nothing constructive there. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Massive attack

The following discussion 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.

Not the band.
Seems the new tactic now is to just "boldly" merge content from BLPs to a ship page and leave the BLP as a redirect, skipping AfD altogether and any kind of discussion process. Just look a: here.
(And the next 500 edits) do a search for; "Redirect after BOLD Merge"
They're seemingly all military bio's, typically about guys with Navy Crosses and ships named after them. I think he's going thru the list of articles from "Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen" that was closed Jan 23.- 225 articles at once.
We should all be familiar with that train wreck.
So far, 153 BLPs - gone. In just the past 5 days. WTF? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this maybe a question for WP:HELPDESK? Beccaynr (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Now at ANI. -- GreenC 19:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mztourist_and_153_articles_redirect-merged_without_discussion Dream Focus 19:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The "new tactic" is to... apply consensus. Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC) And they're not BLPs, they're all deceased. Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you forgotten? Your goal is to improve articles, not just to keep as many as possible. If you are complaining about articles where the consensus is that there is not sufficient sourcing to keep a standalone article (and that it should be merged) you do have to find additional sourcing to keep said article. If you feel every merged article is a personal attack and refuse to abide by consensus, you are likely to not have a pleasant experience on Misplaced Pages, and we are unlikely to be able to remedy that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

←power~enwiki Nobody has "refuse to abide by consensus". And apparently the consensus is that they can redirect (and hopefully merge) all the Navy Cross/Ship named sailors to the ships, depending on the level of referencing. But the merger is without prejudice to recreating the deleted articles. If that's the rule, we all will live by it.

Disclosure of prior AFDs ought to be done, not suppressed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen How dare you edit my comments as you did here: . Mztourist (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist I apologize. That was an accident. So much for WP:AGF. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, the ANI discussion is going to allow the redirects for articles with the one source to stand. Basically, 'no harm, no foul'.

The massed redirects were an impediment to the preferred strategy of improving articles – as a response to AFDs. The admins at ANI think that inconsequential.

I also interpret it as leaving the door open to recreating the deleted articles, presumably with better and more sources.

WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

While I was prepared to let this lie after your apology, I see that you later came back to add "So much for WP:AGF" to your comments above. So no, after the frequent personal attacks, other errors and misstatements: I do not AGF from you. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It was a mistake. I apologized and still mean it. That's why they put Delete keys on computers.
I also have conceded that ANI will say all those redirects were copacetic. I disagree, but it is a fact and ends that issue for me. So it was only a massive redirect not a massive attack.
So please give it a rest; disengage. I have. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Tom Rees wasn't your only mistake, nor was it your only personal attack, just the most recent. You tell me to disengage, but you came back to add "So much for WP:AGF" to your comments above. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a mistake. I apologized and still mean it. I think he is apologizing but you don't accept it. "Such much for Good Faith." That is evidently an accurate description of the situation. There isn't much more to be said in this situation. Suggest you both go your separate ways and not escalate further. -- GreenC 04:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Its a "sorry not sorry" with a lack of good faith attempting to avert sanctions arising from the ANI that you started. Mztourist (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hiding comments

User:Beccaynr please explain why you are hiding my comments. I have legitimate concerns that this project is being used for canvassing at AFDs rather than for page improvement and seeing the discussions above I see that this is a longstanding issue with this project. Accordingly it is inappropriate for you to hide my comments. Mztourist (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed here and elsewhere far too many times already. Charts have been made listing all AFDs who participated and how they voted, and these have confirmed that there is no canvasing or votestacking going on here. Hiding your unrelated comments where you post the same nonsense accusation all over the place, is appropriate. Dream Focus 12:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Prove it, link the charts. My comments are neither unrelated nor nonsense as you assert. They also show a series of personal attacks against me. Mztourist (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You accuse others of canvassing but don't consider that personal attacks against them, but someone trying to close off conversations unrelated to the post they were put into, you consider a personal attack against you. Dream Focus 13:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said originally, canvassing within this project has been a longstanding issue and I saw that going on here which is why I raised it. Please provide the charts that prove there is "no canvassing or votestacking". I don't agree that the conversations are unrelated to the post, but in any event when have I said that closing such conversations is a personal attack on me? 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist, I did not only hide your comments, and they are still viewable by clicking on the banner. As discussed above, I believe the issue is what best supports the work of ARS. The ARS Code of Conduct includes, "Please be sure to follow the guideline on canvassing" and "Focus on improving content." I had thought the message I placed in the banner that collapses the comments was clear enough when it linked to the canvassing guideline, particularly in light of the concern about canvassing you express here (and due to comments such as "Yes that's why it should be deleted" in the William Mahlon Davis entry, and "He's no more notable than any of von Richthofen's other 79 victories" in the Tom Rees (airman) entry), but I think I can expand the explanation in the banner to also include a direct reference to the ARS Code of Conduct and WP:5P4. Per WP:5P4, when you have concerns, you can "discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures," etc. With an expanded explanation in the banner, it will hopefully be more clear that the ARS page is for the discussion of improvements to the content of articles, and if you have concerns about the project, you can bring them to this Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Collapsing conversations in already closed discussions seems kind of pointy. And with the ongoing ANI conversation, the timing has the appearance of being kind of retaliatory. Why not just leave it? ApLundell (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to ARS, but the point is to affirm the ARS Code of Conduct, the canvassing guidelines, and WP:5P4. I think the ARS Code of Conduct makes it clear that the entries for articles should focus on improvements, and particularly when read in conjunction with WP:5P4, the entries shouldn't be used to make larger WP:POINTs about the project. Affirming a commitment to the code of conduct and civility on the ARS page is not intended to be retaliatory. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If a page is raised here, then it is a suitable place for discussing the merits also. This is not a closed group where only some Users are allowed to express their views and conflicting views are excluded. My comment on William Mahlon Davis was in response to a comment that "I am having trouble finding sources" which indicates non-notability. In relation to Tom Rees I was commenting on the fact that the sources are about von Richthofen and not Rees. Mztourist (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the instructions at the top of the page and the Code of Conduct make it clear that the AfD discussion is where keep/delete and notability merits should be discussed. The instructions at the top of the page include, "When posting here, please be sure to: Include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Misplaced Pages, and any ideas to improve the content. Please ensure that your comment here is neutrally worded. (You can also !vote to delete an article at its deletion discussion because you think it is untenable in its present state, and still list it here in the hope that another editor will find a way to improve it and save it.)" Debating notability, campaigning for deletion, and expressing concerns about canvassing therefore do not appear to be appropriate in the ARS article entries, and other forums exist for those discussions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out that a lack of sources probably indicates that an article should be deleted (Davis) and that sources don't relate to the page's subject (Rees) are perfectly valid comments to make here. Similarly pointing out potential canvassing is also valid. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The instructions I quoted above, the Code of Conduct, and the canvassing guideline all indicate that campaigning for deletion should happen at the AfD discussion, not here. Similarly, the article entries are for discussions focused on improvements to the articles, so debates about notability appear to be relevant to the AfD discussion, not here. Concerns about canvassing, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, can be addressed on this Talk page or other dispute resolution forums, but do not appear to fit within the Code of Conduct and the focus on improvements in each article entry. I am concerned that off-topic discussions in article entries distract from and potentially are disruptive to the work of ARS, so I am asking you to please use the appropriate forums for comments advocating deletion, disputing notability, and raising concerns about canvassing. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion and mine is that comments on sourcing (or lack thereof) and possible canvassing are appropriate to be included on the relevant Rescue List entry. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I am asking that when there is a pending AfD discussion, and your comments are relevant to the AfD discussion and not the improvement or rescue of articles, e.g. campaigning for deletion/denying notability, that those comment be made at AfD, not here, because the AfD discussion is the appropriate forum, pursuant to the ARS instructions, the ARS Code of Conduct and WP:5P4. I also continue to ask that you use the Talk page or other appropriate forums to address your concerns about canvassing, pursuant to the ARS instructions, the ARS Code of Conduct and WP:5P4. These requests are made based on the ARS instructions, the ARS Code of Conduct and WP:5P4 to help avoid distraction from and potential disruption to the work of ARS. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I support this position. Otherwise this forum becomes a fork of AfD discussions, an alternative debating ground that will lead to confusion and complaint. If anyone disagrees, and wants to advocate deletion outside of AfD, they are free to create their own Project. -- GreenC 17:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:5P4 is rich considering what I am being called in many of those hidden discussions. I am entitled to comment on sourcing or lack thereof and when I believe canvassing is taking place. This project is not a closed group where only those who share a certain perspective can comment. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist, please recognize that I did not only hide your comments, and all of the comments are still viewable. A WP:5P4 reminder seems important to help support the work of ARS. I have never said that you are not entitled to comment, but I am asking for comments to be made pursuant to the ARS instructions, the ARS Code of Conduct, and WP:5P4, to help support the work of ARS. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And will you be making the WP:5P4 reminder to the User who was making personal attacks? Mztourist (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

My hope is for the banner to remind everyone who visits ARS about WP:5P4, not just those who have comments hidden underneath it. Beccaynr (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I would hope so too. I would note that some User's comments that do not appear to relate to page improvement don't get hidden, here: Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#William W. Creamer. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Burt Township Schools

User:Grand'mere Eugene, User:Cbl62 and User:WhisperToMe Nice rescue from an AFD, article improvement, and a DYK to boot. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Tabletop games deletions

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

DYK for Textile performance

Went from AFD to the front page.

On 14 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Textile performance, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in terms of performance, wool has been advertised as a "miracle fabric"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Performance (textiles). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Textile performance), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:DRV

• The beat goes on for George L. Knox II at DRV now. Here. Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:CANVASS. Mztourist (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not. Those who participated in the discussion, should know about the DRV. Read WP:APPNOTE. Dream Focus 10:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Circular reasoning. They participated in all those discussions because they were notified here with the obvious intent of voting keep just for the sake of it. It's still canvassing when you take the multiple discussions into account. Avilich (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It would only be canvassing if there was an appeal to vote a certain way, but merely posting in the forum is not an appeal since evidently people who read this board can and do vote many ways. -- GreenC 18:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The usual flurry of keep votes, accompanied with half-baked (mis)interpretations of policy and poorly-researched google hits passing for sources, that immediately follow the posting of a notice here must be coincidence, then. Avilich (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

GreenC, this isn't a neutral forum. It's implied that the purpose of bringing AfDs to this project is so that like minded people will vote keep. Otherwise, are you seriously going to argue that people are posting about AfDs to a place called "rescue squad" because they think people here are going to vote for the articles to be deleted? What about things like asking for "reinforcement and support"? How is that not an appeal to vote a certain way? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That's news to me I often vote delete, don't participate, or only participate with comments and/or article edits. Everyone who reads this forum behaves in their own way, including yourself. This forum attracts a wide range of readers and participants. Other mission-focused forums such as FRINGE also get notified of fringe topic AfDs, that sort of thing happens all over. Also this was an appropriate place to post a notification due to previous discussions here. Your idea of 'like minded people' is discounted by the number of un-like-minded people who frequently post here. That's fine, the power of this forum, and Misplaced Pages, is radical openness and inclusion of everyone. -- GreenC 04:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, people are autonomous individuals and make their own decisions. Still though, if you took the main contributors to this forum they would totally have a particular slant that leans heavily toward "rescuing" articles. I'm sure you could find someone who joined 10 years ago and only contributes once a year or whatever who doesn't care about "rescuing" articles, but so what? There should really be a more substantive response to criticisms then handwavy comments like "we are all individuals" or "this is an open platform so whatever." Seriously, no one is anti-individualism or trying to silence you just because they want the forum to follow basic guidelines about not canvasing. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say "so whatever" or hand wave but you didn't really respond to my points either. If the above is canvassing then the entire ARS project is canvassing and there has never been consensus for that. Like the FRINGE example, post a fringe topic AfD to FRINGE noticeboard what do you expect will happen? This sort of stuff exists all over Misplaced Pages. We need to trust one another to act objectively in making decisions and if you see a problem with a person go after them but going after an entire group makes little sense when there is diversity of behavior in the group. Which can be proven with stats. -- GreenC 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Which points? There's been lots of discussions about if ARS is canvasing or not. A lot of people think it is. I'm not sure where you would get consensus for it or what difference it would make though. It's not like ARS can't clean up it's act and get rid of the canvasing flourishes without the whole Misplaced Pages community having to agree that it should first. While I agree that we should trust each other to act objectively, the behavior of ARS members isn't objective, nor is the guide or title of the forum, and you can't divorce those things from each. I would say the same for FRINGE and other forums, but as far as I know there hasn't been repeated problems in AfDs with people from FRINGE. So this isn't a general problem with "forums" that applies to stuff all over Misplaced Pages. It's specific to ARS and ARS members. Sure, I could take it up with individual members of ARS, but I think it's as much a problem with the objectives and purpose of the forum as it is an issue with particular users. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what a canvassing flourish is. Can you link a recent example -- GreenC 20:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I assume you know what a flourish is. If not, Google says it's to "wave (something) around to attract the attention of others." According to the Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles "Editors, particularly new editors, often ask the Article Rescue Squadron for help saving an article." Which is waving around that the Rescue Squad exists to "save articles" from being deleted. If I posted messages on users talk pages along the lines of "can you help me save this article?" or "I'll save this article for you" with a link to an AfD, that would be considered canvasing. The point is, the project waves around the fact that what it exists for. Sure, it's without explicitly saying "we vote keep in AfDs for you", but that's the intent behind it. Otherwise, the guide would just say the purpose of the project is to improve articles. Without saying "saving an article" repeatedly. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that is the intent but it might be better worded to encourage editors to improve articles, which is what occurs frequently anyway because you normally can't save with Keep votes only (contrary to popular opinion and easy to show with data). I personally would not be adverse to a group rule that votes alone are discouraged, only if you do some work to improve the article - in particular adding sources. Someone who works on an article should be allowed to participate in the AfD that can destroy their efforts, and rightly so they will know the article and sources best and explain why it should be kept. -- GreenC 03:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

As you know ARS as a canvassing forum is being discussed at ANI now. User:GreenC there are a large number of Users participating in that discussion who share my and User:Adamant1's view that this is canvassing site. Perhaps better to focus all discussion on this issue in one place? Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that Template:Rescue list was, quite properly, posted at the AfD. This dispute over canvassing could perhaps have been avoided if it had also been posted at the DRV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the only acceptable votes at AFDs are Delete or Merge. WP:AGF is being more honored in the breach than the observance. You are culling the voters; and deciding who gets to vote based on scoreboarding and outcomes. I try to improve articles and seldom vote. I choose not to blindly vote keep; and I do not participate on many article that appear on the rescue squad page.

Reasonable minds may differ as to whether articles should be kept or culled. That there is an opposing view is a hallmark of fair debate and a catalyst for balanced consideration. And when it is posted at ARS, articles are in fact often improved. That some of you don't like the improvements or the sources is no proof of misconduct by the improving editors.

I have succssfully rescued many articles, and then taken them on to the main page at WP:DYK. That was because I improved the articles. Conversely, when that happens, it is prima facie evidence that WP:Before was ignored or done haphazardly. I don't write that at AFDs any longer, but it is a fact. And it is not a "personal attack."

I have been affronted by the efforts of some of you to mass delete groups of articles. You know who you are. And I will continue to oppose that kind of conduct.

The current effort at ANI is 'guilt by association' and has nothing to do with individual editors and their conduct. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Having been on the receiving end of various emotive comments from you 7&6 I don't AGF towards you. Mztourist (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yet people who aren't particular ARS members are voting keep in AfDs everyday without a single issue. Even people from ARS who stay away from the seeder aspects. Weird. In the meantime there's plenty of examples of "inclusionists" ruthlessly trying to cull the herd when a "deletionist" gets reported to ANI. I've had it happen myself. At least in this case getting rid of ARS is being floated as an option, instead of just blocking all of you outright. Which I'm sure would be on the table if things were reversed. Ultimately getting rid of ARS would have zero effect on the ability of it's members to participate in AfDs or organize to improve articles in better places. So I really don't understand the emotive copulations or hyper bull about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Apparently the only acceptable votes at AFDs are Delete or Merge. That's disingenuous considering most of us have, you know, voted keep before. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to kindly ask you to take this to the ARS talk page, and the project page is getting wordy. This page is really not for protracted discussion. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I will move the whole thing bc is it seems to be still going. I collapsed the other one already Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)