< September 23	September 25 >

September 24

Korean business templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Malcolm (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All red link farms with a minimum of blue links; ((Doosan Group)) is the worst offender here. Some look more useful than they really are as they link to a number of redirects, but none of these link to more than four articles, and consequently they all have few transclusions. These articles should all be sufficiently interlinked anyway. I have no problem with these templates being recreated when or if there are enough articles to support them. PC78 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Rescue

The result of the debate was Keep, but with caveats on usage, wording, and an eye to how it's used in practice. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a long debate. The close has some caveats. So the carefully explained close rationale follows.

The first observation is simple: - the "Rescue Squadron" are absolutely correct in their interpretation of AFD. Indeed, AFD anticipates and hopes for improvement to articles during the process, if encyclopedic. The debate is about this template as a means to that end.

A template that can be placed on an article may not be the way to go (one could for example list them at some "WikiProject:Rescue", or the template could be placed on the talk page or AFD page), but a page template is noticed by passers-by far more than an entry on a project page or AFD comment would be. The existing AFD templates simply say one may "edit" the page, but not that an editor specifically believes this article can be fixed. The usage also parallels other "fix me" [maintenance] tags used in article space. So there is at least a rationale for a template to be employed.

The arguments presented in the TFD itself polarize around two major reasons for deletion, and a large number of views (around 2/3) towards keeping (albeit with various suggestions for necessary improvement). The main reasons proposed for keeping are as given above; the two main delete views are:

"Gives the appearance of warring" and "Move to talk page" -- I concur. Even if it doesn't suggest 'warring' in mainspace, it does risk sending confusing messages to readers and diluting credibility. Also, per WP:TMP: "Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page". This template provides "information only of service to editors" [or would-be editors, or people who would check out and read comments in the deletion discussion]. Pretty much QED.

(Both of these concerns speak mostly to use in mainspace. A number of nominal "Delete" views state they would not have such objections, if kept to talk pages.)

"Vote stacking" and "inclusionist-pushing" concerns (^demon and others) -- I don't agree. The template is requesting urgent remedial editing, if possible, of an article believed to be encyclopedic but defective. The word "rescue" carries overtones, but the rest is sanely worded. This is legitimate, policy based, and indeed desirable per deletion policy. In other words it is not saying "Keep a duck, then try to fix". It is saying "Improve during AFD to remove flaws that may lead to less than ideal deletion". There is a valid case for this statement to be given high profile, if an editor feels it is the case, given the short timespan of AFD.

Most of the delete views are based upon one or the other of these.

So based on policy, reasons given in debate, and that this seems to be the compromise contributors by and large agree upon, I'm closing this as Keep.... but with two caveats:

This template should be applied to talk or (perhaps even better) AFD pages only. Whilst a template saying "I think this AFD candidate could be encyclopedic if researched - please urgently help" is a good one, mainspace is the wrong space for it. That's one of the main concern of the "Delete" views. Appropriate use would meet template namespace criteria, support improvement over deletion where possible per deletion policy, and not give the incorrect appearance of warring or excessive article tagging.

An article that is terminally defective but unimproved, should be deleted according to communal deletion norms even if it could be fixed (without prejudice to a proper article being created later on). A further risk is possible gross over-use by proponents of articles that should be deleted ("Please fix this article on my favorite restaurant!!"). So the template will need to be very specific as to wording, and discourage this. The wording should be careful not to suggest that AFD contributors should endorse a terminally defective article if not remedied - the other main "delete" concern. And consider rewording the actual text to "flagged for improvement" or something, rather than "flagged for rescue", it's less likely to get WP:MUSTKEEPIT! reactions. If widespread uncontrolled misuse were to happen in a disruptive manner, and cannot be handled, then this TFD may need revisiting.

This template provides a mainspace link to the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject that aims to improve articles that are currently at AFD. While this is a noble cause, the necessity of such a template is minimal and treats the "salvation" of the article as a war to be won.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot lodge a keep comment here due to a conflict of interest, but Keep (with Swatjester post, my CoI has been removedFosnez 07:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)) please read this before posting. IMHO this template is a constructive addition to the wikipedia toolset and has been used on quite a number of articles that might otherwise have been deleted (when the nomination was not valid, or they nominator could not be bothered to look for sources). I would also like to point out that we (The ARS) do not play wargames, we find sources and cite articles. The ARS itself has been up for deletion twice in less then a week and kept both times. Fosnez 06:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies here? If you want the template to be kept then there is nothing stopping you from defending it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was not referring to the wikipedia COI policy, as that obviously does not apply here. The general idea of a Conflict of Interest is that one shouldn't participate in something that your interest benefits directly out of, in this case the template that is linked above. Fosnez 07:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While a noble cause, it does not belong in mainspace. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one other things, the Article Rescue Squadron has a good number of admins in it that have not complained that this breaks any policy. User:Dsmdgold, User:TimVickers, User:Zanimum, User:Gnangarra, User:Jossi, User:bibliomaniac15, User:Morven, User:Fuzheado, User:CatherineMunro, User:DGG, User:Sjc - Please tell me where this template - used for saving articles that contain encyclopedic topics - breaks policy. Fosnez 07:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - same reasoning as this and this applies (most of it, anyway). It has a constructive purpose, it doesn't violate any policy, etc. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - going by the criteria on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion:
1. the template is helpful, notifying interested parties that it's an article that may be worth saving-by-improving;
2. as far as I'm aware there's no other template with the same purpose;
3. the template is being used;
4. the template satisfies NPOV.
I don't see anything about the current template to do with a 'war to be won'. It's just about turning an encyclopaedic topic into an encyclopaedic article. --Zeborah 08:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zeborah. --Iamunknown 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This TfD is not about the project but about a particular mainspace template and I would recommend to ~~delete and~~ replace it with one designed for the talk space for three reasons:
1. With the link to the project page, it is an implicit comment on the ongoing AfD discussion, which should better be made there or on the talk page.
2. Besides the project link, it duplicates the link to the AFD discussion itself, but adds little additional information since separate mainspace tags for notability and sources can be added anyway.
3. The basic objective of flagging for the projects' purposes can be achieved also with a template on the talk page. It is my understanding that this is our general practice for project templates anyway.--Tikiwont 08:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate on where to put this tag is taking place on the template discussion page. Unless you support outright deletion regardless of where the template is placed, I hope you will retract your !vote and participate in that discussion? — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I initially just wrote 'replace' but as the current template was modeled on the AfD tag, I somehow reckoned that a fresh design for the userpage would be better. But it's not just a question of placement. I also find the actual Template:AfD tag lacking since it does not encourage improving the article under discussion (as opposed to Template:prod). So I would be very much in favor of merging the sentence "If you can help improve the article, including citing sources and establishing notability, please edit this article." there. Maybe further merging can be done as per CBD below, but I think we should have one template only on the article itself that informs on deletion, retention etc. BTW, we also categorize AfDs and transclude them via deletion sorting. Maybe some of this can also be incorporated in the more practical aspects of how interested editors can be reached.--Tikiwont 14:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no issue with this template now that the last line has been rewritten. If it can highlight certain articles and improve them, why not :). -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I find the deletion of articles that simply need good editing and the abuse of the AfD process tiring and a waste of time, energy and off-putting to potential new editors to wikipedia and related projects. This template is an elegant solution that directly addresses the unfortunate instances where potentially good articles are being gambled upon; will enough decent editors find the AfD and save the article or will all the previous work be deleted? To me seeing the template is a glimmer of hope that others view the AfD process of needing some balance to protect against abuse. The project is not limited to only certain subject areas and seems to be only interested in improving Wikipedia by improving articles. I can also attest to the position of the tag on the article page as being effective. I wouldn't have seen the tag if put on the talk page and easily may have given up on editing the article if I hadn't see other editors interest in rescuing it. If the template seems too POV then propose some wording that seems better. Benjiboi 08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article talk pages. What a fuss over nothing. Put it on the talk page; it then accomplishes the requirements of the ARS; unless, of course, what they are saying it is for is not what it is for. Articles do not need to be highlighted to be improved - all articles should be improved. I am down as a member of the ARS project, because some of its aims are good, and it has a funny acronym, but the template is not needed on the article. Neil ム 09:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Spare per Fosnez, Zeborah, XDanielX. Pretty straightforward - noble idea, bad request for deletion.DEVS EX MACINA _pray 09:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Template talk:Rescue#Talk page I think moving it to the article's talk page is a reasonable compromise until something can be done about the ARS itself. – Steel 12:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from my posting at talk page - I agree with Fosnez on article page placement, this is especially true for less experienced editors and lazy editors who, in theory, would be familiar with talk page discussions before editing but in many cases never even look at the talk pages. I see the rescue squad as balancing the many abuses of the AfD process, which, as far as I can see, are rarely followed as spelled out and instead articles are tagged without discussion or consensus and chaotic "save the article" editing takes place which is probably not the best work. Annexing the template to talk pages would render much of the potency moot and as the template is very short term and presumably on articles that are headed for the junk heap who cares? Benjiboi 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just stumbled on the topic and decided to sign up. I think the cause is a good one. If the article cannot be "rescued" then it deserved to be deleted, however if cleaning it up and providing sources can help, then let the group do its work. Many people voting in AfD do not take the extra step to work on what is being AfD'd. this is a good alternative. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. We wouldn't be having this debate if it was "Article Deletion Squadron" to try and garner deletion votes on AFD, it would get shot down in a heartbeat. This is merely inclusionist votestacking in disguise. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So lets Save er..... Improve articles up for deletion. Keep this template. Rewrite and move it to talk page. Navou ^banter 13:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the project page, we are not about commenting on AfDs, but rather fixing up articles that contain encyclopedic topics that the nominator of the AfD did now know how to, or could not be bothered fixing. After all, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not delete one. Fosnez 20:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Demon, are AfD categories votestacking? I don't see how the ARS project is any different, apart from the fact that the category lists articles which editors believe are more appropriate for inclusion than other articles listed on AfD. If us ARS members just wanted to push an inclusionist agenda, we would indiscriminately go through all of the AfDs, rather than wasting time with ARS bureaucracy. The project is intended to save articles which do merit Wikipedia articles. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to talkpage or delete. I don't really like it (placing it on an article gives too much the impression of "this article is worthy of keeping", no matter if it is true or not; and many articles that were AfD'ed too soon or in error were imporved and kept anyway, without this template and squad), but if needed anyway, it will serve the same function on the talk page without cluttering the main article page even more. Fram 13:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is getting silly now... This needs to be kept. Bjrobinson 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tags for a project such as this should be placed only on talk pages, not on article pages. And since this template is clearly designed as an article tag with its sidebar color coding, it should be deleted. I would, of course, support and encourage a new talk page template for this worthwhile endeavor. -- Satori Son 14:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe the template has had its color changed a few times based on best information at the time. Benjiboi 14:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but based on the debate at Template talk:Rescue#Talk page, it is quite clear that this template is intended to be used as an article tag, which I believe is inappropriate. At this point, my preference is to delete and start over with a new talk page template. -- Satori Son 14:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the ARS is not your standard "schools" or "country xyz" project, it is a last ditch effor to save an encyclopedic article from deletion. The tag is only placed on articles that are up for deletion, and once the deletion tag is removed, this tag is also (IMHO it should really be placed inside the AfD comments section like here) - Fosnez 21:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That doesn't give it any special right to make any demands. It further does not give it any right to belong in the AFD comment section, which actually is vandalism if it is removed. It's a freakin wikiproject. It's not the police, it's not the firefighters, it's not the paramedics. It's a freaking wikiproject. It's EXACTLY your standard xyz project. IT's NOTHING SPECIAL. That's what everyone is getting upset about: attempts like this to make it something special. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are not making demands, it has now been worded as a request, just as I did before (until you reverted it). I don't think anyone here, apart from you, is getting upset - the rest of us are having a debate. I suggest you keep cool and take a break. Fosnez 22:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per ^demon, as well as high visibility on the article itself. I have no objection with a template being used on talk pages though. east.718 at 14:11, September 24, 2007
Strong Delete per ^demon. I would be less inclined to delete if the template was applied solely to articles that were notable, or at least stood a chance of being such, rather than being placed seemingly at random. It also doesn't help that some of the editors placing the tags don't seem to understand the concepts of notability and what Wikipedia is not. A germ of a reasonable idea, badly executed. (Note: no objection to a re-written tag designed for talk pages).ELIMINATORJR 14:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so because some people may be abusing the tag, it deserves deletion? The ARS is realitivly new, so "policy" for tag usage has not been agreed on yet. Fosnez 20:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without any restriction on its use other than that it be used in conjunction with the AFD template (as is presently the case). This template is designed to be used to facilitate improving the encyclopedia. Deleting it will not improve the encyclopedia, therefore deleting it would be erroneous. Similarly, restricting its use to article talk pages would diminish its ability to be used to improve the encyclopedia, therefore that suggestion is also inappropriate and should properly be ignored. Far too many of the arguments for why it should be on talk pages rely on the illogical application of categorical rules ("tags related to Wikiprojects always go on talk pages") ("this template is intended to be an article tag") without any apparent analysis as to whether those categorical rules apply, or should apply, in this circumstance. Indeed, it is very difficult to escape the conclusion that those seeking the deletion of this tag (and those seeking the deletion of the Article Rescue Squadron itself) are doing so because they view it as an impediment to the rapid deletion of content from Wikipedia which they do not approve of. These people have forgotten that writing an encyclopedia is a process that requires time, thought, and deliberation, and that developing consensus even more so. Roadblocks to doing anything rapidly in Wikipedia are a good thing, and as such this particular roadblock serves an important purpose and should therefore be kept notwithstanding the (mostly bankrupt) arguments for not keeping it. Also, allegations that this is a "votestacking" device are without any question made in bad faith and are made without regard to the fact that the project responsible for it explicitly disavows any sort of votestacking and also the complete lack of any evidence for such accusations; "delete" recommendations on that basis should therefore be ignored and those making them chastised severely. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now who is assuming bad faith? It's been a recurring feature recently that when articles that are patently non-notable or fail WP:NOT (especially WP:NOT#NEWS) are put up for AfD, a load of sources are added to them, followed by a glut of "Keep! Look!! It's sourced!!111" votes that bear no relation to how notable the article actually is, with the result that most of the AfDs end up "No consensus". So feel free to chastise me and others voting delete as much as you like, but for me, improving the encyclopedia != adding large amounts of trivial crap with dubious notability. And some of the articles that have been tagged with ther template in question are exactly that. ELIMINATORJR 17:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you have evidence that this is being caused by this template? Please, let's see it. Otherwise, I suggest you drop the argument. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying it will exacerbate the problem. If articles are fixable, great; but since you raised the point, have a look at the keep votes on this one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion gestapo); practically all by memebers of this "Squadron" - which says only one thing to me; these tags are being placed by people who don't actually understand our guidelines. ELIMINATORJR 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A clear parody. Do you have any real evidence? Your statement that "these tags are being placed by people who don't actually understand our guidelines" is startling; the ARS was founded by and is populated by some of Wikipedia's most experienced editors. I think you may find that these editors merely have different opinions about and interpretations of those guidelines than you do. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly, parody or not, that is clearly not a viable article, and yet it has Keep votes (in fact, it only has keep votes as far as I can see) from editors from the project who placed the rescue tag. If there are more experienced editors in the ARS, perhaps they can persuade the others to quit this emtire rather pointy tirade against some mythical cabal of deletionist sysops, of which this article is a part. ELIMINATORJR 17:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminator (or do you prefer "Junior"), it should be obvious that both the Deletion gestapo article and the deletion discussion for it are intended as parody and people are behaving the way they are in an attempt to be humorous. I am actually rather perplexed that it was not speedily deleted or moved to user space, but Wikipedians do love their processes, even when they make no sense. Nor is it that surprising that some members of the ARS are a bit, um, torqued right now; there have been two attempts in the past week to delete the Article Rescue Squad, after all (both rebuffed). It is perfectly reasonable for this deletion effort to be seen as another salvo being fired in an ongoing war. Remember, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action; and the ARS has been hit with three separate acts hostile to their purpose in under a week. For them to feel attacked and to take defensive action is perfectly reasonable. It pains me that the preferred solution to a perceived problem with this template or its use is to delete it, instead of to open a dialogue with the people who are purportedly misusing it. I've seen this so many times that I'm starting to think that the average Wikipedian's kneejerk response to anything they don't like is to delete it (or, if they can't, propose to delete it). Why can't we have a discussion before someone starts wiring up the explosives? Kelly Martin (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair enough response, actually. Yes, there is some element of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in a lot of deletion proposals, but I would say that 90% are done in good faith, or AfD would be full of anime articles or minor characters from TV shows every day. However, while I'll recuse from this conversation now, I am still wary of the results that this project might produce. (And also this, which I've just had pointed out to me). ELIMINATORJR 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"have a look at the keep votes on this one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion gestapo); practically all by memebers of this 'Squadron'" - I count six 'keep votes'; four by people not listed at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Members... and both of the members there actually saying that the page should be made into an essay. Somehow I'm still not seeing the 'vote stacking'... unless you were also counting the two members of that project who have voted Delete? Grand total number of ARS members saying that page should remain in article space: zero. My math may be off, but I'm pretty sure that's less than "practically all". :] --CBD 16:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I included the "Keep and convert"s as Keeps, plus the user who kept re-adding the ARS template. The other Keeps include someone rambling about the deletionist cabal, and another with similar on his userpage. These are surely exactly the type of attitudes that the ARS project doesn't want to be associated with, because it'll give a poor impression? I'll say again - IF the template was restricted to the talk pages, and was applied with discretion, then it's a good idea. ELIMINATORJR 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are saying that you treated everyone who said 'Keep' as 'members of the Wikiproject'... and thus 'found' that all the keep votes were from supposed 'members' of the project. I just looked at the ones who were actually on the membership list. You say the project 'surely does not' want to be associated with the attitudes of those various people... but they aren't. The actual members commented that it should be deleted or moved out of article space. The only 'association' with those attitudes is your charge that all the people holding them are members of the project... which is just untrue. As to applying the template only with discretion... we should do that with AfD too. :] C'mon. The fact that a template can be placed on a page where it shouldn't be is not a reason to delete it. Plenty of AfD, Prod, and CSD tags are placed on articles they shouldn't be too. As I said below, the 'talk page' thing seems like excessive bureaucratic thinking to me... there is no appreciable difference between the AfD template linking to WP:AfD and the rescue template linking to WP:ARS. If you want to draw a distinction over the latter being a 'Wikiproject' (though to my eyes the former is as well) that's the 'bureaucratic' bit and could be 'solved' just by moving the ARS page. --CBD 10:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about deletion templates - as an admin I regularly have to remove CSD tags on articles. AfD, I think, is slightly different though; AfD'd articles that are obviously viable are generally speedily kept, so when there is a discussion it's usually about whether the article conforms to Wikipedia policies. Or at least, they should be, but often aren't; which is why I said that AfD was broken earlier, and why I am still somewhat wary about the results of this Project. However, others have made good opposing points, and this TFD is going to end no consensus, so let's see how it goes. ELIMINATORJR 10:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep so some people with deletion fetishes might have to put up with an article being improved instead? What a calamity!
Delete -- I fail to see the point of keeping for the sole sake of keeping, which is exactly what this template is about. How about a "keep with discretion" template instead. Danny 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danny, I expect better of you. This template isn't just "keep for the sake of keeping"; it's "this is something we should have an article about, please fix it so there is one about this". Not even remotely the same thing. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see why they cannot just make their arguments in the AfD discussion like everyone else. A category for pages that need cleaning up to save from AfD is a noble idea, but a big template at the top seems to me making ones opinions known in article, instead of at the debate. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not a call to vote or an argument against deletion; it is a call to improve the article in order to save it. Did you even look at the template before recommending its deletion? Kelly Martin (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is making the assertion that the article can be saved. That is an argument for the AfD, not the article page itself. As for attracting editors to fix it, a category will do fine, that template is just to draw attention to one point of view. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if its going to be used on articles - we should minimise the amount of meta-data on article pages. Don't mind it being kept too much if its use is going to be restricted to talkpages though... WjBscribe 17:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. This is entirely congruent with Wikipedia's aims; anyone who says otherwise fails to understand them. James F. (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James, as I said above, this is a germ of a good idea poorly executed. No-one is arguing that improving fixable articles that are at AfD is a bad thing, but that this method of going about doing it is. ELIMINATORJR 17:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it intriguing that the problem with this is that it links from the article name-space to the project name-space. WP:POINT (which I regard as one of my finer policy creations) prevents me from pointing out that the AfD template does exactly the same. That one of them is deletionist and thus nihilist, whereas the other is actually productive, it seems that it is the latter, not the former, which is to be criticised. James F. (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on how it's used. You'll see my problem with it on my first reply to Kelly Martin above. We have a serious problem with AfD being broken at the moment, and I don't see that this initiative helps. ELIMINATORJR 18:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your argument is based on the faulty premise that notability is a deletion criterion, it (somewhat unsurprisingly) fails to convince. James F. (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my main target was articles that were violations of WP:NOT. Though to be realistic, you know as well as I do that notability is a major point in a deletion debate. ELIMINATORJR 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What goes into choosing which articles get the template is flawed and vulnerable to personal bias, but I could say thing about template:afd. Ichormosquito 18:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The whole reason someone wanted this template deleted was because it says in the template to not remove the templated until an AfD has closed. From what I just seen of the template, it says As a matter of courtesy, please do not remove this notice until the AFD discussion has been closed. I don't know if the As a matter of courtesy was added before or later but that satifies it for me as far as being a part of AfD pages. If you don't have any courtesy, and I'm noticing more and more people on WP don't, then remove it when you see it. The fact is, the template brings strong notification to users that could improve an article during the AfD period. I've witnessed at least one article that survived AfD due to edits made after the Rescue template was put in place on the AfD. And I don't agree that the template should be relegated to the discussion page of an AfD. It should be as prominent as the AfD template. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a useful project to improve articles on worthwhile topics that are nominated for deletion. I would have no problems with this being on the talk page instead of the article, but I note no problems with using this in either place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The point of the ARS is to alert Wikipedians to improve articles that are at risk of being deleted for failing to prove notability. An example of this would be User:Carcharoth's hard work to rescue Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture with a steady stream of edits. Obviously this template will be abused (items like WP:IAR or WP:AGF are being abused, but no one is suggesting we delete them), but the people who intentionally abuse this ought to be dealt with appropriately, & not this tool. -- llywrch 20:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call me jaded, but I don't think that adding the template would be very beneficial in the vast majority of the cases, just like ((cleanup)) is ignored in the vast majority of the cases. Yes, Carcharoth pulled an article back from the trash bin, but I'm not sure if that is simply going to happen most of the time, or even some of the time. That said, since it is essentially a WikiProject banner, keep but move it to the talk page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the added value of this template next to the Afd notice. In fact, it's basically an Afd notice with an inclusionist point of view.--Atlan (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is not point of view added, its just a cry for help really, and its a cry straight to the people willing to do so, if its notable enough the rescue team will resesitate if not they'll remove it or not do anything, its very helpful. I'm not against it becomming a template of its own, but it makes sense to combine it with deletion and is less clutter, asking for a rescue because it may be salvagaeable is not a point of view its more of a question.Cholga^talK! 23:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is adding another template to an article less clutter?--Atlan (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe he is saying that combining it with the AfD template, as discussed here would be less clutter than using both. --CBD 14:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah yes, I should've read that better.--Atlan (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a section break[edit]

Keep - Stated objections to this are that it is a vote stacking tool and procedural issues around the structure and placement of the template.
1. "This is merely inclusionist votestacking in disguise". Looks like a false accusation to me. Sociolinguistics research in India was kept because these changes were made during the AfD discussion... causing five delete 'voters' to switch to keep. Note, that's the majority of the 'keep' comments on the discussion, people who changed their opinion because of the improvements - NOT 'vote stackers'. Likewise see these improvements to the Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. Given that this is the primary objection, cited by most of the 'delete' comments above, could we have some examples of situations where this process didn't significantly improve the article and keeping did turn on most of the 'keep' votes coming from project members?
2. Template structure - Currently this template is something like a combination 'AfD', 'Cleanup', and 'Wikiproject banner'. I agree that it is largely redundant with the AfD template... and thus would suggest that it should be updated so that it can replace the standard AfD template (while maintaining all its features and neutral wording)... something like an 'AfD disputed' concept. The 'cleanup' portion of the template is standard fare for article space and thus can be retained as is. Which leaves only the 'Wikiproject' aspect in dispute... but then what is AfD other than a 'sanctioned' Wikiproject? Move the 'ARS' to 'Wikipedia:Article retention' as a similar 'standard practice' and there is no difference between linking to the one vs the other. It's window dressing and thus shouldn't be grounds for treating one differently than the other... if people really insist on such a bureaucratic distinction (for the brief period AfDs run) then I'd suggest the Wikiproject just get new curtains.

This process has demonstrably improved the encyclopedia. The objections seem unsupported by the evidence, easily addressable, and/or overly bureaucratic. Ergo, keep. --CBD 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further review of the current state of the AfD templates, the easiest way to handle the 'redundancy with AfD' issue would be to add an optional parameter to Template:AfDM which, when set, displays additional text about cleaning up the article per suggestions and discussion at ARS. Which would essentially make this now a Merge suggestion. --CBD 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to talk page. This is essentially a project template, and as such it belongs on an article's talk page rather than the article itself. In its present form the template is largely redundant to the AfD template anyway. PC78 00:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure I've seen a simple template more in line with the projects goals before this one. An excellent idea towards improving the encyclopedia. --InkSplotch 02:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it would help if the members of this project were a little more discriminating about which articles they tag with it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that we need to sort out a more official "policy" on it's usage. I'll look into into drafting up some as soon as this whole delete/rename/merge/whatever event blows over. Fosnez 20:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to talk page (or possibly AfD section). I don't know if it does any good, but it clearly does harm on the article page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please elaborate as to why you believe this template does harm on the article page? Fosnez 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The category is inappropriate in almost all cases, even if the template were applied only to articles which could be improved. I'd say the appropriate action is to delete the category. If that were done, then it's not much different than an ((AfD disputed)) template would be. (That could have a category attached, as well, just not the one used here.) I'd accept MOVE (without redirect) to ((AfD disputed)), rename category to something without the word "rescue", and erase all trace of the WikiProject. Then it could be an article tag. However, delete and recreate as a more rational mainspace template may be a better idea. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite sure you understand how this template is used. Perhaps you could have a read of the Article Rescue Squadron project page and reconsider your position? Fosnez 01:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps if it were used as described, it might be appropriate. However, the template, banner, and category seem to unassume good faith on the part of people who propose articles for deletion. What the project seems to be proposing would be a banner saying "this article may contain encyclopedic material, but it's hard to find. If you can make it clear, please do so." (With an eyeglass or deerstalker hat icon, rather than a life preserver.) In other words, the template, as written, seems harmful. A modified template, with an appropriate category name, might be helpful, if it had no trace of this template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can follow your reasoning for the most part. Regarding your unassume good faith suggestion, I would comment that there are quite a few AfDs that the nominator should not have really placed an AfD, but should have searched for sources. This is why the Article Rescue Squadron exists. A lot of the time all that is needed to source/cite an article to the required standard for inclusion in wikipedia is a simple Google News search. The template can be used as a tool to both rescue articles and perhaps politely suggesting to the nominator of the AfD that they should have searched for sources before nominating the article. It is not designed to be used as a personal attack, as perhaps a deerstalker icon may be interpreted. I hope this helps explain the meaning behind the template? - Fosnez 03:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely -- has the potential to greatly improve the encyclopedia, per Kelly Martin.--SarekOfVulcan 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A good project and a useful template. Reinis^talk 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have said, it's useful, and not part of some inclusionist agenda: rather as a tag for articles that look enyclopedic. Gordonofcartoon 22:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of my strongest keeps yet as the template is for editors to improve this website proactively and is therefore a positive, good intentioned idea that should not be shot down. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen some strong deletionists add this template--in the perfectly honest attempt to see whether anything at all could possible be found for an article they think hopeless where some people say otherwise. If in spite of this template, improvements cannot be made, then it might well persuade people (like me) who sometimes say something like "keep, under the assumption there will be sources," to change to delete. By itself it's neutral. How can anyone object to a call to improve articles? DGG (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Easily. The category name is inherently biased, and the situations in which the template is to be used should be in the template (under <noinclude>), not just on the project page. If it were separated from the project, and fixed, it could be a good template. (For what it's worth, renaming the category is not a matter for CfD, but for TfD, as the category is populated from the template. Deleting the category without deleting the template would be a CfD matter.) I'll propose an alternate template which might be reasonable in Template:Rescue/Arthur Rubin proposal. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree that having instructions on the template pages and that have the template used in a more mainstream fashion is a good thing, I don't think removing all reference to the Rescue Squadron is the best was of accomplishing this. I think having a debate of a category name is a little to bureaucratic for my liking (no offence intended). Fosnez 20:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was suggesting that the template should be of interest to the ARS (hence noted on the talk page), but not belonging to the ARS (hence there should be no reference to the ~~WP:CABAL~~ ARS in the template itself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, facilitates important work. Everyking 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, strong keep. But move to talk page. SchmuckyTheCat
Delete per demon. Seems like an inclusionist flag; an equivalent deletion flag would be likely deleted already. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definition of Inclusionism:

Inclusionists are also generally less concerned with the question of notability, and instead focus on whether or not an article is factual.

And now a quote from the project page:

The Article Rescue Squadron has nothing to say about what topics should be included in Wikipedia. It's not about casting keep votes or making policy. It's about making sure that articles about notable topics don't get deleted because of writing style, or because they're stubby

As you can see, the project's goals, and therefore this template, are clearly not "Inclusionism". Fosnez 00:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep - I'm unsure why there is even a debate about deleting this. A bunch of people on wikipedia are getting together to improve articles and this tag assists them and harms nothing else. Improving the articles is the entire reason we are here ? - Peripitus (Talk) 08:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - move to talk page. Useful template about trying to keep articles that would pass muster of an AFD if they were well written, but wouldn't otherwise. I would think that this kind of template would be exactly what we want here. Besides, if we delete this as too inclusionist, I have to wonder what people will say about the much more egregious Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletionism. The Evil Spartan 01:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and keep on the article itself, but with some review of the actual content (and I'd be glad to be involved in that). Various editors make cogent arguments about the detail of the template, and the category name, but the essential point and intent of the template is a good one. For what it's worth, I generally lean more towards deletionism than inclusionism, but this template helps remind us that, given a sub-par article, deletion and inclusion aren't the only options - we can also improve the article in a number of cases. The template page should also have the usage instructions, of course, and it doesn't seem important for ARS to "own" the template. Rather, the wider community should own it, and ARS should be seen as "serving" it. SamBC(talk) 03:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Excellent idea about ownership and serving. Fosnez 05:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur wholly with SamBC's suggestion--Victor falk 10:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Badedit

The result of the debate was speedy delete - author requested. The Evil Spartan 01:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vandalism warning template that facilitates adding a diff of the vandalism to the message. It doesn't appear to be used and doesn't fit in with the standard at Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings. In addition, I don't see how it's helpful for a vandal to be shown a diff of their own vandalism. szyslak 05:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, written in a legacy-style, and doesn't add anything useful compared to the WP:UTM messages. The diffs in question, if it's necessary to include them, can still be added after the warning. --Sigma 7 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; inconsistent with current style, though some automated vandal warnings do provide the diff AFAIK. On RC patrol I've never used it, and I never would. Shalom ^Hello 13:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inconsistent with the consensus-supported scheme of WP:WARN and would only make WP:AIV enforcement more confusing. -- Satori Son 14:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted, but never got to improving, we can delete. VoL†ro/\/Force 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC

The result of the debate was Delete. Mike Peel 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC. This source is not reliably public domain. Suggest we replace with ((PD-USGov-Military-Navy)) where we can. — cohesion 01:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but then we must check all ~150 images on a case by case basis. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree - needs to be replaced with ((PD-USGov-Military-Navy)) where appropriate, and the other images tagged as copyvios. I'll even volunteer to go through the images and check them (getting guidance from others for any that aren't obvious to me) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing admin, please remind me when you close! :) Thanks — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 11:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hqfl logo

The result of the debate was Delete, once a bot has checked to make sure that the hqgl URL is given as a source. Mike Peel 23:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is needless and very improper. This is just source tag, no license tag.

The HQFL isn't copyright/trademark holder of respective logos. For what purpose must wikipedia give link to them in template?
The ((Non-free logo)) is more adequate in these cases.

The redirecting (((Hqfl logo))-->((Non-free logo)) as ((Sports-logo))-->((Non-free logo))) isn't very good decision in this case. The source will be still needed. The images with this tag must be retagged with other logo-license tag with source: http://hqfl.dk/, if respective images haven't it. — Alex Spade 09:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's a little messy but I don't see anything wrong with it as a copyright tag. However, it does not replace the need for sourcing or for a proper use rationale. It's clearly a license tag, not a source tag. The source of the copyrights in all these cases is the copyright owner, the sports team in question. This just says how the image was produced, apparently. It's best to not delete the or redirect the template for now, until we can sort this out. It should be deprecated and use discouraged in the meanwhile -- new images should be tagged with ((Non-free logo)). Wikidemo 09:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as redundant and unnecessary for a sports logo. Can't we have a bot go through and replace every instance with a Hgfl URL for the source? The Evil Spartan 01:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with The Evil Spartan; we can request a bot to replace the uses of the tag, with appropriate URL for the source. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]