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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox World university rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template that is seemingly used only in one article. With only two notable world ranking organizations, a template seems like overkill for information far better presented in prose, if at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom.--Sloane (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2009 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iflink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Unnecessary substitute for ParserFunctions, which doesn't actually simplify their usage. Only previously used in ((coatrack)), where it was is unnecessary anyway and caused causes unintended whitespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does simplify usage. It makes the insertion of a page that may or may not be a page easier and simpler. The whitespace issue is a technical problem, not something to discuss at TFD. XFDs are not cleanup, nor are they places to blow every new page out of the water. Who says the Template: namespace can't grow? Sure some stuff is patently redundant or unnecessary, but what's wrong with making things easier?--Ipatrol (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Don't see a benefit. Garion96 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Universitydepartment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unused and seemingly useless footer "infobox". Not used in any actual articles and, with the format and seeming lack of details, it seems to have no useful purpose. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. I could see it being converted into a semi-useful header infobox, but this just seems useless. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:15, 9 March 2009 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Happy‑melon 17:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is not useful, and redundant to a few other templates. Right now, the template is at the bottom of countless articles about American films. The template itself, tho, does nothing apart from linking to lists ranging from List of American films of 1900 to List of American films of 2009. Which means that, for example, Terminator 2: Judgment Day links to List of American films of 1934, and A Streetcar Named Desire (1951 film) links to List of American films of 2004. Why that would be useful would be anyone's guess.

Here is a bit of a backstory for the template. There was initially a template like this for each decade, but the templates were nominated for deletion and, instead, were merged into one template, making the problem worse, not better. There might be a point in having a template like this if it would be used only in articles where it is actually relevant. But, on the other hand, there already are other templates doing the same job: There is Template:Americanfilmlist, which links to the same lists and is used only where it is supposed to be used, and there is Template:CinemaoftheUS, which is used only in articles that are directly relevant to American cinema at large. Both templates do the job quite nicely, and there is no need whatsoever to have this template on every single article about an American film as well. A link to List of American films of 1991 in the "see also" section at Terminator 2: Judgment Day would do a much better job, for example. --Conti|✉ 12:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. While I could see decade-based templates as having some validity, this template provides too much information with no directed purpose. hornoir (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I disagree with the nom that a single template is worse than having seperate templates for each decade, but the end result is that this template has in effect become another version of ((CinemaoftheUS)), and the two should be merged. I do, however, agree that use of this and related templates should be restricted to relevant articles, and that a simple link to the actual film year list would be better for individual film articles. PC78 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree, but if everything's done as you propose, where would be the difference between a merge and a delete? Either way, the template would be removed from pretty much all articles. --Conti|✉ 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A merge would require redirecting one template to the other in order to preserve edit histories and such, not that I particularly care about such stuff but apparently some people do (per GFDL). :) Determining the usage of these templates seems to be a bit beyond the purview of TfD. There are a whole family of such templates to consider (including the likes of ((CinemaofFrance)) and ((CinemaofJapan))) which are used in a similar fashion; either they all belong at the foot of individual film articles or they don't. PC78 (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is why I vote Keep. These templates are great for linking to other film related articles within the same project. I find it odd that the American template is under review for deletion, when we've only just setup the American Film project. It encourages users to click into links of films from the same country from the same year. Or to goto categories for that nation's directors, screenwriters, etc. I'd use the same rationale for the Japanese, French, templates etc. Having more links (albeit via a template) should be encouraged! The template itself is not over-bearing and sits nice and neatly at the foot of the article. Even if only ONE editor clicks the link to see the list of American films from 1931 from a 1931 American film article, and then does ONE edit on another 1931 film as a direct result, that can't be a bad thing! Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't mind the template itself, but I don't think it belongs on the article for every American film. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —kollision (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Groan groan not this argument again. Please don't let us waste anymore time. The lists serve a purpose to document films by year, the footer templates are there for a reason. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never disputed the purpose of the lists, I question the validity of linking to every single list from every single article about a film. --Conti|✉ 01:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've been editing dozens of film articles over the past few months, and only just stumbled on this template in The Pawnbroker (film). That's where I saw the deletion notice, so I came here. I can't recall ever seeing this before. To be consistent, one would have to put this template on every one of the hundreds or thousands of film articles, many of which are stubs, and I don't see what value it adds. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although its use should be seriously curtailed. I can understand having this template on the list articles themselves but not every one of the thousands of American films. I notice that there isn't any discussion on the template's talk page about where this is to be used or what its intended purpose was/is. FWIW, I found this template on 1 Night in Paris, the sex tape of Paris Hilton. Dismas|^(talk) 00:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template is not used on the list articles, that's Template:Americanfilmlist. So deleting this template wouldn't remove anything at all from the list articles. --Conti|✉ 01:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete My apologies, I got mixed up. So if there's a separate one on the list articles, just delete this one. Dismas|^(talk) 01:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete. It should certainly be kept on the list articles. I'm ambivalent about its use on all of the films. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment above, this TfD isn't about the template on the list articles. --Conti|✉ 01:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. I guess I should have checked; I was under the impression that this was used on both the film pages and the list pages. In that case, it's useless. Thanks for the correction! CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant. 86.156.227.211 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why is only the US template up for deletion; and all the other countries' templates, which do the same thing, are left out? LA (T) @ 14:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no purpose of linking to every single list from every single article about a film. Garion96 (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2009 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was redirect to ((Commonscat-inline)). No need to delete, but unnecessary duplication. Happy‑melon 17:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonscat-inline2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates template:commonscat-inline. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This template does not duplicate template:commonscat-inline and is well-used. Rotational (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only difference I see between the two is the usage of the word "Images" rather than "Media". --Carnildo (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2009 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Happy‑melon 17:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commons-inline2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. The one place it was once used, it was used improperly, because the linked to Commons location did not exist. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2009 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonsmedia-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates template:commons-inline and template:commonscat-inline templates, used only for category linkage right now (duplicating usage of second template here) 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2009 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. While there are certainly issues with the way this template is used, there's no consensus here to delete or mandate a move to the talk page. Happy‑melon 17:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rescue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No other WikiProject or group puts tags at the top of articles like this. WikiProject tags always go on the talk page of an article. There is no reason to make an exception here. No guidelines exist for its usage and it's often used as a weapon to push voters to the deletion discussion, but not as means to improve the article. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a service tag much like all the other ones that sit atop articles and this one is only to be used with the AfD tag, which the project enforces. Guideline for usage is featured prominently on the project page - what this tag is for - what this tag is not for. As for the assertion it's used "as a weapon to push voters to the deletion discussion, but not as means to improve the article" I think that needs to be addressed on a user level if the claim holds substance. The project is intended to bring attention to articles at AfD that an editor thinks is notable - by default that means taking part in the AfD discussions. Not sure why that should be discouraged. As yes improving articles is a component of what the project does. However, it is not the responsibility of the rescue folks to fix problems but to offer opinions if problems cited are fixable- this is what AfD does. Members often do greatly improve articles as well.

From the prior TfD discussion a partial quote from Kelly Martin- 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. In short banishing the template from the article page to either talk or AfD page mitigates its usefulness. Only a fraction of users visit either the talk or AfD page and this template's intended use is for an AfD so is limited to less than a week's time which seems a minor inconvenience to those who deem it inconvenient at all. Deleting this template will effectively shut down the project, neither seems like a good proposition. -- Banjeboi 11:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Do any other WikiProject templates or templates belonging to any other internal Wikipedia group go on articles anywhere else on the project? Is there any reason to make an exception here? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How else would Wikipedians interested in rescuing worthy articles form deletion know about them? This very issue was debated at the start of the project -- some people then believed exactly as MZMcBride does now -- & the consensus was that this template was the best way to do it. There wasn't any better choice. -- llywrch (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need for an "exception" since there is no "rule" from which to be "excepted". The Rescue Template is temporary, and serves ALL projects equally, not just one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to nom Why can't the procedure for the template's usage be changed? If deletion is a last resort, what have you done to change the way this template is used? Have you discussed the usage of this template at all? Themfromspace (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous discussions regarding the template's legitimacy / usage have all taken place at TFD. I saw no reason to change this. Personally, I wouldn't object to having it only the talk pages, but people seem strongly against that for some reason. It's what we do for every other WikiProject tag.... --MZMcBride (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the point being lost by that argument is that WP:ARS is explicitly not like "every other project" in that they service ALL projects in need and not just "interest specific" content, and further fails to address that the Rescue tag template is removed once a rescue has been made, while true "Project Tags" remain with an article for its entire life. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. This is the main template for a productive and helpful WikiProject. I can understand some of the nominator's concerns about the way the template is used (perhaps the project would work almost as well if this banner was on the talk page) but the correct venue for that discussion would be Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron not WP:TfD. Martin^msgj 14:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to talk page. There is no practical upside to having this on articlespace, as AfD procedure already makes clear that articles should be improved if possible during AfD. It's a project banner, it belongs on the talk page. Much like with the various other templates related to article rescue which have passed through XfD recently, it's not that the sentiment behind the template is wrong but that it's being used inappropriately. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree completely. This is a service tag tied solely to the AFD service tag. If there is a wikiproject built for AfD then would we insist AfD tags be moved to the talkpage as well? We do have our own project banner and that is on appropriate talkpages. All the other template referred to were one editor's attempts to address perceived problems and didn't seem to be forwarded from a project level as much as their interest. -- Banjeboi 11:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment implies that the ARS tag is a counter to the deletion tag. It is not. It is a Wikiproject set up to help out articles which may be notable. Just because one person believes it may be notable doesn't mean that it should get flagged on the main page as so. Unlike speedy deletions, where a hangon tag is needed, users have an ample amount of time to explain their rationals at the deletion debate, which is linked to from the article's main page. I don't think this template should stay on the main page because it is governed by a Wikiproject, not Wikipedia policy or guidelines. But also I don't think this MfD is the proper place to decide the usage of the template, hence my keep vote above. Themfromspace (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are rather unique project I'll admit. For instance there is a Wikify Wikiproject which works to address articles with the ((Wikify)) service tag. Both projects essentially work by editors flagging articles - in the mainspace - which populates categories that other users then visit. The nature of the rescue tag, however, is that it is tied to the AfD process. This makes it time sensitive and perhaps interests folks who enjoy that component. That they only have a few days, depending on how quickly the rescue tag was added. This also means that the tag - whether placed abusively or not, whether a secret coded missive from a cabal or not - is gone when the article is deleted or the AfD is done. For an article that was slated to be deleted anyway, this just seems like a non-issue. I may be wrong. -- Banjeboi 14:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Benjiboi's eloquent & comprehensive argument. I can't think of anything to add to what he wrote. -- llywrch (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the AfD notice goes at the top of the article, so should the rescue template. Unless we want to move the AfD tag too, this should stay. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on article's "front page" as encouraging a weak article to be improved improves all of wiki. Deletion, or relegatiion to article's talk page diminishes its utility in improving wiki....
  1. WP:ARS is not like "other projects" in that Article Rescue Squad members are not topic-centered, have no special interest beyond improving the project, and work toward saving articles across the entire project for ALL WP:Projects.
  2. Stating that project tags "always" go on the talk page simply shows a "custom" for topic-specific projects but is not mandated by guideline.
  3. Further, once an article is "rescued" the tag is removed.... while "project tags" stay on the talk page for the life of an article.
  4. Stating that an article needs improvement and rescue and then directing to the AfD where specific concerns are being addressed is a weapon? If improving articles does not improve wikipedia, then would anyone even try?
  5. Despite the best of intentions, it is a sad truth that many articles are sent to AfD for the wrong reasons, often without proper regard for WP:BEFORE or without due consideration of WP:ATD. Not always, certainly.... but far too often. For these articles, a timely Rescue is the best option that improves wiki.
  6. Since it easier and more productive to address the result of these "oversights" rather than argue about the causes for them, many such articles are indeed "rescued" as a result of the intensive rescue efforts during the AfD... efforts that specifically address the concerns brought up AT the AfD.
  7. While the templates for cleanup, notability, facts, expansion, sources, cites, etc., are all well and good, they work within a lack of any deadline for improvement. RESCUE brings articles to the immediate attention of editors willing and able to do improvements NOW instead of later... specially important as the clock is ticking.
  8. And did I mention that unlike all other "normal" and "self-interest" project tags, Rescue tags are temporary?
• Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per supporting Editors above and;

1. the service tag is temporary,
2. no guideline is being ignored, only a questionable custom that is easily modified byway of editor preference,
3. it informs the reader/visitor/fellow editor in the most obvious and visible of places. Random Article Editors would by-pass an article in potential delete status since the talk page is rarely checked.--Buster7 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop#Analysis_of_evidence for pertinent and relevant discussion --Buster7 (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep TfD isn't for discussion about where the template should go. While this template has been used and abused for personal preferences, the nominator's suggestion that it should be placed on talk pages should get discussed before a discussion of the template itself should occur. No prejudice to renomination once all other outlets of discussion have been tried. Themfromspace (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as it is spammed on articles and used to attract inclusionists to skew AFDs. The template User:Stifle/deletionhelp that I just created would be deleted in a hurry if it was in template-space. If kept, then like all other Wikiproject templates, it should be edited to require it to be placed on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blink blink, huh? You seem to imply that the template is telling editors what to think and how to vote. It's not. It's sole purpose is to improve the article to satisfy concerns raised at AfD or at least address the concerns regarding the AfD. We're here to improve articles, this template helps towards that purpose. -- Banjeboi 11:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that might not be what the template was designed, for, but it's what it accomplishes — canvassing inclusionists to !vote to keep articles. Many of the articles tagged for rescue are no-hopers, but end up with floods of "keep and cleanup" !votes. (See User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up for more about that.) Stifle (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per Stifle, I think this is a situation where we need to look at actions instead of words. (Again, apologies to WP:AGF.) / edg ☺ ☭ 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, so is there any evidence of the cabal actions being generally and liberally applied. If so it would be helpful to bring these cases to light, if not we should move on and desist with the blanket characterizations. -- Banjeboi 00:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to be interpreted by closing admin - I have to express a certain dismay at the recent usage of this template. I closed several AfDs in a row where this was on the page, usually followed immediately by the tagger commenting at the AfD with little or no effort to actually improve the article. The guidelines for use at WP:ARS are also unhelpful - they say, for example, that they should be used on articles that are notable, but frequently AfDs are on the basis that the nominator believes them to be non-notable, so how do the project members make this determination without the resolution of community discussion? I think it is actually a pointless tag for the article space - there is a huge sign up saying that the article is up for deletion, which itself invites improvement/commentary. This template is twice as large (in height)and stands out much more, reducing the quality of the article whilst discussion is underway. If ARS want a convenient way to categorise their chosen articles fine - but use a talkpage template or a hidden category. And those who apply the tag, if retained, really need to get down to it and edit the article, if the article can be saved. If not, then why bother tagging it at all? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ARS project and the tag itself should not be held accountable for an editor not adding substantially to the AfD discussion. In many cases the tag helps, we have hundreds of cases so far that show this as well as plenty of anecdotal evidence. I myself have worked on dozens and even rescued a few that went to GA status that I would have never even sen if it weren't for this tag. The tag size is rather irrelevant, in fact the project has worked to keep it brief and simple. Until the AfD tag shrank a bit it was actually smaller in comparison. This is still rather a non-issue as both tags are only there less than a week. I think some editors may have been over-zealous using the tag but frankly I sense that as frustration from dealing with a dozen or more related articles being nommed at the same time. Whereas those who apply the rescue tag perhaps too liberally may tire and learn to be more selective the rate of deletion has never seemed to lessen. There has likely always been and likely always will be articles that shouldn't be created and should be deleted but fostering community involvement in the process is not the problem. This template is part of the solution to help keep articles that should be here while allowing those that shouldn't to be removed. -- Banjeboi 11:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I don't see that there is a particular issue with the template per se, and so deletion is obviously not an answer - I jsut think ARS could avoid this kind of thing by being either a little more discriminating about what it tags, or making its guidelines for use clear so that the rest of us understand under what criteria articles are selected. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is less pressing than the abuse of the numerous deletion tags which are more often placed inaccurately or without proper thought per WP:BEFORE and our other deletion policies. Any inappropriate use of the rescue tag is quite harmless as the article is still readily available for editing, merger or whatever. Misuse of deletion tags, however, results in the loss of material contrary to our editing policy and so directly harms the project. The rescue tag helps to counter such abuse of deletion tags and so serves a good purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, whilst I agree that there are definitely many inappropriate uses of deletion tags, I would hope that most of those errors are picked up by participants in the subsequent discussion. If they aren't then that is a problem - as I said above, I think the template should not be deleted - but I think it would be helpful if ARS' guidelines for applying them were clarified somewhat - even if it is just eliminating the existing guideline and saying "If you see an article you think should be rescued, apply this tag!" - I would agree with the sentiment, however, that this is an issue for the ARS talkpage, and not for a deletion discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that finding ways to ensure the tag is used only when appropriate might help ... but we will likely always have newbies or the general clueless who will simply miss the point and use it anyway. This discussion, like pretty much all the prior ones has helped improve the project and spawned some ideas so that's a good thing. For those who add the tag to articles that seemingly are without hope I think it's also helpful for our involvement as several of us our piecing together an adjunct welcoming wagon of sorts. If we can help take newby and potentially useful editors and point them to constructive wiki ways than we all win even if their flagged-for-rescue article goes down in flames. In short ARS remains part of the solution, if malformed articles and AfD didn't exist we probably wouldn't either. But there likely will always be a needs to address articles that are lacking. -- Banjeboi 14:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That feels just like a POINTy sequel to that AN/ANI debate about ARS. As outlined above, the tag itself does not do anything that people complain about, like "attract inclusionists" (WP:TINC anybody?) or "push voters". That's, to say it bluntly, paranoia. If one thinks the tag is misused, then it's not the fault of the tag, much like it's not the fault of a hammer if I use it to crush someone else's skull. And, as MichaelQSchmidt outlines, it's also not a WikiProject banner, which are designed to be permanent but a service tag, only to be placed on an article for a maximum of five days. There is no reason within the template itself to delete it and alleged misuse of the template cannot be a reason for deletion. Regards SoWhy 10:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have worked upon this template to tighten its appearance and to improve the presentation of the links to relevant sources which it presents. Articles are routinely nominated at AFD for which a proper search for sources has not been made in accordance with WP:BEFORE. The template assists such searches in a helpful way, so improving both the discussion and the article. I often improve articles with this tag myself and it seems superior in this respect to numerous other tags which seem to languish on articles for years without any attention. It is these other tags which need to justify their existence. The ARS tag stimulates a brief burst of editing activity in a timely and self-limiting way and so should be applauded rather than deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - This template is a necessary tool of a necessary project. It goes on the article page because that's where the deletion tag goes. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The unique nature of the template, with regard to AfD, means this exception to the norm is necessary. And, while I'm here, props to MSGJ for flagging it for rescue :-) --  Chzz  ►  12:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As it's a request to improve an article that's up for deletion, it belongs next to the AfD tag -- or its use needs to be debated on Talk, not TfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'd like to say Keep because articles pending AfD deserve a shot at being brought up to standard instead. In practice however, as Fritzpoll notes above, all this template ever calls is canvassing and wikilawyering with little or no effort to actually improve the tagged article, typically in the form of unsubstantiated cries of Notable! for articles nominated for failing WP:NOTE. It's like an agitated dwarf living next to the toilet who admonishes No, don't flush. There could be gold in there! (Apologies to dwarves.) WP:ARS has been called on this behavior before, but seem unlikely to change their tactics, so I lean Delete and will continue to do so even if WP:ARS members again promise to actually improve articles (apologies to WP:AGF). If this template is kept (and I'm guessing it will be), it should absolutely go on Talk pages, not in article space. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with ((Afd)) per Gazimoff's recommendation below. It seems so obvious now. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you are correct in the you certainly aren't assuming good faith even when evidence shows that ARS members certainly have improved articles. I've personally rescued Péter Tóth (pianist), Pinoy, Fingerboard (skateboard), Diverse Harmony, Slut Night, Jeffree Star, Pixel artist, Fruit (slang), Non-heterosexual, March 19, 2008 anti-war protest and Fudgie Frottage, amongst others and contributed to a lesser extent on many many more. To accuse an entire project as you are doing is wholly inaccurate and misleading. Also the ARS project explicitly works towards neutrality. As far as I'm aware we have self-professed deletionists as well. -- Banjeboi 00:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at those links I agree that you (I mean you, Benjiboi) do really excellent work. Without this template, would you have not worked on these articles? / edg ☺ ☭ 19:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some perhaps but certainly not all. I didn't even know they existed. Right now I'm rescuing Faith in Place a group I have never heard of before. -- Banjeboi 23:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've noticed your work before, and you're quite good; furthermore I've agreed with your points in other, non-xFD discussions, so please don't take this personally. One good apple doesn't mean we can make a pie. If WP:ARS would place this tag on Talk pages (where belongs discussion related to editing the article but not important to general readers), I would be voting Keep, and perhaps this template would not have even been nominated. My suggestion that a Merge to ((Afd)) should still allow categorization under Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics so that the good-faith editor (perhaps one per every Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and Del Arte sockpuppet) can find articles needing cleanup. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...But to borrow your analogy, one "bad apple" does not then mean tossing out the entire basket. The problem with merges and categories is that they do not address the immediacy of the ticking clock. They do not address the utility of a simple tag saying "Help make me better... HURRY". Those attempting a rescue due to the template, have days or hours to do so... and if they miss seeing a then-hidden tag, that makes one less editor helping improve an article. And assuming the best of good faith, articles still and continually get nominated for the wrong reasons and without consideration of WP:BEFORE. Its a whole lot easier to make a 10-second judgement call that something may be unsuitable and toss it, than to sweat hours over it bringing it into line and addressing concerns. Relegating it to the talk page does not immediately and clearly announce that the article has potential, nor does it immediately invite rescue attempts. Afd and Rescue share the task of immediate concern for articles that may not be up to standards. The tags act well in concert. Both tags are temporary nd removed with a deletion or a keep. "Hiding" the tag out of plain view greatly diminishes its utility, as it is not there only for rescue squad members to see, but for any wikipedian who might be able to improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am unhappy with how this is being misused (and I've spotted more than a few clear misuses), but it's essential to WP:ARS's function, which I believe in. For now, I'm inclined to believe from experience that the good outweighs the bad, but let's focus on using it on notable subjects with bad articles and stop using it on anything else, eh? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should brainstorm more on this at the project or elsewhere, I have at least one idea that holds some promise. -- Banjeboi 00:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to various objections raised above What is wrong with saying "It's notable" and not improving the article in an AfD? Obviously, comments should be weighed by the closing admin in proportion to their detail, thoroughness, and policy adherence. But let's turn it around: Would anyone support a restriction on delete !votes that they must state each delete !voter had tried and failed to find sources to improve the article? Really, it sounds like all those who want this gone, (and many who want it kept, too) don't agree with WP:TIND. Fact is, there's plenty of absolute excrement that should be cleaned out via speedy or prod, and plenty of other stuff that does get unceremoniously shown the door at AfD. Focusing on things that one editor has slapped a rescue tag on is focusing on a relatively minor issue. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be a good thing for the project, regardless of some of the administrative/bureaucratic nonsense that has been spouted. Improving a article is always better than deleting it, and this template seems to be a good way to attract attention to that noble goal. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I too rescue articles that I was not involved with prior to noticing the ((afd)), when I thought the ((afd)) was a mistake. I did so before this template. But the existence of this template has been of help to me. I notice various respondents, above, have asserted that the template has been "misused". So, I checked the template's page, to see the suggested usage. And I would appreciate it if those who have a concern that the template has been misused would describe this abuse, or offer examples. Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stifle/deletionhelp, i.e. if that is considered a bad faith nom and is worth speedily keeping, then something that actually help improve our project should be speedily kept. Also, keep per WP:SNOW. The project does much more good than anything else as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural hoof care. Finally, as an active member of the project, we do not blindly argue to keep every article someone tags with template as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laws of compression. In cases like Natural hoof care, such editors as Colonel Warden and I will actually improve the articles. In cases like Laws of compression where sources do not exist, I am absolutely willing to argue to delete, whether the template is there or not. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:POINT much? Stifle (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not the one who created an alternate template as a response... not to mention going down the list of articles with the rescue template rapid fire voting to delete all of them including multiple votes in under a minute. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This listing does not qualify for speedy keep as someone besides the nominator has argued to delete. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be speedily kept due to two discussions already that resoundingly ended in keep. Sincerelt, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not one of the accepted speedy keep reasons. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am going with reason two, i.e. disruptive or pointed renomination. Third time is not a charm. Also, another recent example of the group's success is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oklahoma Statehood Stamp with kudos to Professor Paul who did not merely comment in the AFD, but worked on the article as well. Another is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra Verde Services, which also saw some improvement after being tagged without the "squadron" flocking to the AfD and was not deleted. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That the ARS has been successful in the past isn't a speedy keep reason either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Certainly not a reason to delete. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That reason doesn't apply when someone else recommends deleting the article. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which is not a valid reason for deletion and which is why we have a snow keep here. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I could not object to a snow keep. Stifle (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ((Afd)). Logically, any article nominated for deletion should be trated fairly and consistently, with uniform advice presented to the editorship. By cherry-picking which articles should be tagged for rescue, the Article Rescue Squadron could be seen to be vetting articles and only requesting support for those they deem worthy of rescue. But, by the same token we want to encourage all editors to improve articles so that they meet our policies for inclusion and part of that includes providing them with the tools that veterans have been using for some time. Other than the tight timeframe that it operates in, there is little to seperate the ARS from other WP-wide initiatives such as the now defunct Wikipedia Spotlight. Many thanks, Gazimoff 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could go for that. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Support for this suggestion. If this is done, I can say Delete ((Rescue)) without reservation. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose for the this modification. ARS exists to rescue rescuable articles that at least one experienced editor knows (or believes in good faith) could be the basis for an acceptable article. Marking everything for rescue is the same as abolishing the ARS entirely, and expecting everyone who cares to wade through every AfD. It is absolutely cherry picking, and cherry picking is absolutely the right thing to do to build an encyclopedia--ARS is involved in absolutely appropriate discrimination: between articles that merit work, and those which do not. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose ARS is not the problem here. If we weren't able to rescue dozens of articles and every one tagged was ultimately deleted we likely would have no members at all. If only articles that deserved to be removed were sent to AfD then we would be unable to save any of them. -- Banjeboi 00:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging or combining with an Afd template would markedly diminish the utility and success of the Rescue tag and the Article Rescue Squad, as MANY MANY MANY MANY articles are nominated for deletion that have absolutely no redeeming value to Wiki. I have opined delete on many many such myself. The tag, as currently used, is placed only on those that might be saved befoe the clock ticks down to zero. Point: take a look at any one time at the tremendous number of articles up for deletion. Then compare it to the meager handful that have been judged possibly worth saving by ARS. Combing the two templates would essentially render the Rescue tag as useless... as there are far more editors willing to tag for deletion without themselves practicing WP:BEFORE (sorry, but sadly true), then there are actually trying to fix something before giving up and throwing it to the lions. The rescue tag is used in a limited fashion by instruction at the ARS project page. Or, and I am assuming god faith that it is not, could this "merge" perhaps be a suggestion intended to eliminate any useful contributions by the ARS? I would hope not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be clear, I'm not suggesting that the ARS be abolished - they do good work in improving articles so that they meet our policies for inclusion. Having said that, I'm really trying to get an idea of the purpose that this template is intended to serve. If it's supposed to be an indicator that there is an alternative to participating in an AfD discussion through improving the article and adding sourcing, then I would have thought it would be more logical to include that information in our standard AfD template as it would provide the same level of encouragement and guidance, but at a more uniform level. If it is to help marshall the efforts of a specific wikiproject (bearing in mind that wikiprojects do not have to be restricted to a particular subject area), then moving it to a talk page structure would be more appropriate. This is in-line with other collaborative article improvement projects, despite the somewhat unique circumstances that the ARS operates in. Gazimoff 02:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our work is tied to this template, it labels an article that has already been tagged for deletion that an editor feels it concerns a notable subject and needs help, quickly. This is simply not accomplished when tucked away as mitigating as talkpage or AFD page placement would do. It would diminish it's use and therefore diminish it's effect of improving articles. Frankly, by definition, it's there for less time than the AfD tag and both are removed or the article is deleted within days. Not sure why such a concern for a tag that is put only on articles slated for deletion for such a short time. -- Banjeboi 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As these kind of templates should go on the talk page (it's disruptive to articles at the moment), it also seems to be on articles at times that don't really need "rescuing", I suspect mostly for canvassing purposes.--Sloane (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as the AfD tag is quite often placed on articles that do not merit deletion. Are you calling those AfD's disruptive as well? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' Absolutely, but I also think there are good reasons to put the AfD on articles and not on talk pages. This template on the other hand, isn't informative to the reader and should go on the talk pages.--Sloane (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is actually quite constructive and far less disruptive than the standard AfD template. There is no valid evidence of it being used to canvass any more the AfD template is. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is no comparison with the AfD tag, because the AfD tag can only be added when putting an article up for deletion, this template can be added to an article (up for deletion) when a person feels like it. And it's pretty bad. Since it went up for deletion, I've actually had to revert the adding of the rescue template to the rescue template. --Sloane (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a contrast to the AfD tag. The ARS tag is about improving articles and our project and can easily by ignored by anyone, i.e. it does not harm anything when being placed on an article, but by contrast might actually result in improvement. The AfD tag, which is actually is misused regularly and spammed on articles routinely for nothing more than because the nominator just doesn't like those kinds of articles, can and does result in harm to our project when those who do not help build articles just hoever around AfD spamming "it's cruft" and "just non-notable" non-arguments that misrepresent actual consensus. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting isn't a solution to the fact that it should go on the talk page. I agree with A Nobody that it's not necessarily disruptive, but not that it's not used for canvassing inclusionists. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment All utility tags have users who misapply them but we don't delete those templates either. By this rationale the AfD tag would be either deleted or delegated to the talkpage. -- Banjeboi 00:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On WP:CANVASS The real nail in the coffin of this TfD is that the key argument for its deletion centers around WP:CANVASS... but those asking for its deletion haven't apparently read or understood what WP:CANVASS says: "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." The rest of the guideline goes on to talk about partisan notifications of individuals. There's no partisanship to the ARS page--anyone is welcome to see what's been nominated for rescue; the process is a limited message (one page/category), neutral, nonpartisan, and open--the very characteristics that WP:CANVASS encourages. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be what it's intended to do, but in reality, WP:ARS is an inclusionist magnet, so adding an article to this list attracts inclusionists, primarily. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take exception to the continued use of "Inclusionist" in a insulting and derogatory manner, as I myself refrain from using that other derogatory title "Deletionist". Its use here denigrates the efforts of all those who strive to rescue articles to so as to improve the entire project. And with respects to Stifle, one might just as flippantly state that AfD's attract deletionists, primarily. Point being that neither argument is worthy of the fine editors who are commenting this discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is clear that being templated for rescue does not stop deletionists from going down the list of rescue templated article with delete votes either, though. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a neutral, public notice attracts more !voters to one side of an issue than the other, is that the notice's fault, or an indication that consensus is against those who are out!voted? Oh, and would any of the delete !voters prefer that WP:DELSORT be deleted too, since it informs people of specific AfD's? If not, what makes it different from ((rescue))?Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It merely reflects the opinion of the minority of overall editors who want to come in those discussions; most of our editors prefer spending their time building articles only a handful actually comment in AfDs. Think how many snapshot in time five day AfDs have less than a half dozen comments but concern articles that scores of editors have worked on them for years and in many cases probably would have argued to keep only to return to the article to find it gone. A number of articles I would have worked hard to rescue and argued to delete were in discussions that I totally missed. And all of should be able to think of instances when someone said, "Hey, what happened to the article I created?" Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The claim that ARS is some kindo of jingoistic Rubber Stamp group of editors is contrary to fact. I have experienced the concrete and valid reasoning that many of the ARS editors have given to "save' an article from the trash bin. I have also experienced the hard work that ARS editors do to add verifiable references, do the tedious job of investigating googles to improve the article (not just count them), E-mail possible contacts related to the article that can provide a bit more insight and relevance, etc. Every article I have voted to Keep was preceeded by investigation, consideration, library visits, etc. Also, in the short time I have been in ARS I have supported a DELETE at least 3 times of the perhaps 20 articles. I am confident that other ARS editors are just as dilegent, if not moreso. The template is a tool. As Editor:A Nobody states above, it can just as easily be used by any editor with any POV. Let's be creative and not limit ourselves to methodology that doesn't fit the current climate. You hear that wind in the trees????? Change is a'comin!--Buster7 (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has value and suggests that an article could and should be rescued. It is in the spirit of Wikipedia. Deployed inthe correct place on the page it is removed when an AfD is closed. It is not intrusive and adds value. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh I'm with AMiB. the purpose of the template is to identify articles in the deletion process which appear to be there largely from lack of effort or poor presentation. As such, it is not the same thing as a project tag, which would merely identify that a particular project is interested in a particular article. But I'm not really enthused about the usage of the tag in practice. Protonk (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The tag's use for canvassing and spam are problems with editors, not the tag. --EEMIV (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think it does any harm - yes it undoubtedly draws people to participate in Afds, but that's a Good Thing. Admittedly some of those people will just !vote "Keep" automatically without giving a reason (I've seen a few "Keep, I found it on Google, so therefore it must be notable" contributions) but these should have no effect on the closing administrator's decision, and perhaps those people will, once they see how Afd works, begin to take part in a more useful manner. (Perhaps the users of the template will start to fix articles themselves rather than drive-by tagging and hoping "someone else" will do it, we can only hope.) Use of the template is a user issue not a template issue. pablo_hablo. 10:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The tag is a vehicle for notification. It is a call to action. The very few "I found it on google" respondents are outweighed by "Ive investigated and researched the google hits......" I think its fair to say that the automatic voters on both sides of the keep/delete issue balance out. I can't say for certain but I doubt that the so-called drive-by taggers will "leave it at that." They get involved in the process of saving save-able articles. Not all save-able articles...but the ones that call out to them for whatever reason. The list of AfD's is always formidable. It equates to a list in a Maternity ward of the "preemies" that need a diaper changed or need help with feeding or just need their backs rubbed. Not all make it! And, not to stretch the analogy to far, some (articles) don't deserve to make it.--Buster7 (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Solid mechanism for attempting to improve the encyclopedia. If it is being mis-used (and I've not seen any evidence that makes me think it is) that's a user problem. Hobit (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Frankly, I don't think this template is even necessary and it is frequently abused. Almost every time I've seen this template placed on an article, it is placed on articles purely on the bases that the person putting the template on the article likes the article and not because there is a change the article can be improved to survive its deletion. Current examples of this are the three Robotech Wars articles along with two side articles, which are nothing more than extensive plot summaries and have no hope of being "rescued". No amount of clarification of the template's documentation will prevent this kind of wide spread abuse. If an editor is interested in rescuing at article, then they should be willing to look for sources and clean up the article to a state to where it may be kept. If the editor wants assistance, then they can request it from the appropriate WikiProject. You don't need a template for that. --Farix (Talk) 14:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History of this template actually disagrees with you here. Although all service templates are sometimes mis-applied we don't delete the templates as much as try to educate the editor who misapplies them. "Abuse" is overstating an editors earnest attempts at keeping content they think should be kept. Since it's only in conjunction with an AfD any cases of abuse, IMHO, would have to entail an editor truly abusing the tag and overtly so. I'm not convinced we have seen that yet. -- Banjeboi 15:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Robotech article are emblematic of almost every case I've seen this template used. I have almost never seen it applied to a article that is actually "rescuable". But as I already stated, the template isn't necessary to rescue "rescuable" articles. --Farix (Talk) 15:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What, like WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Saturn's Rings? I don't see a single editor who's been attracted to vote in favor of it by the AfD or Rescue tag. In fact, I just went and voted to redirect it with prejudice. However, I agree it is emblamatic of another problem: per the history, no one has ever tried to simply redirect it, as suggested by WP:BEFORE. I appear to be the first editor who's pointed this out in connection to this particular AfD. If the ARS is guilty of applying WP:BEFORE as an alternative to deletion, then what, precisely, is the problem with that? Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (@farix)You're right, and it would be nice to see people editing and improving articles which are tagged for rescue (if possible). I think it's too soon to tell whether the rescue tag will encourage people to actually do this rather than place the tag and assume their work is done. pablo_hablo. 15:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Your personal experience is perfectly valid however it does not match the overall success of this template which has resulted in many rescues. I know because I personally have rescued articles I never would have even looked at without someone tagging it. This TfD discussion though did spark an idea that I have proposed to the project that any user who applies the tag be sent a message to encourage them to do work themselves (with links to resources) and seeking assistance from approprriate wikiprojects etc. There is another issue, perhaps, if editors are repeatedly using the tag on "unrescuable" articles. That is, of course, somewhat subjective but they might have a larger issue of not understanding wikipedia policies or they simply may be working in an area (like a brand new cartoon, for instance) that is doomed at least for now. The underlying issue is also that many many articles (well over 300 as far as I'm aware) have survived AfD so apparently were rescuable. Whether those articles should have ever been sent to AfD is yet another issue. AfD is flawed, we all know this, and ARS/this template helps rescue articles that have been marked for deletion but shouldn't be deleted. -- Banjeboi

• I think a notice board would be better suited if it is simply to draw attention to such articles instead of this template. This will give an added benefit of allowing editors to comment if the article is actually "rescuable" or not. But there really needs to be some way to remove this template from obviously "unrescuable" articles, such as the Robotech articles mentioned above. But one other thing about this template, and that is that the scope of the template being expanded beyond article rescue. With that, it is becoming more of a canvasing tag then an article improvement tag. --Farix (Talk) 15:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I can think of two ways to remove the teemplate from non-rescuable articles tagged for rescue: 1) Speedy deletion, 2) AfD closure as deletion. Aside from an obvious speedy candidate, there really is no good reason to remove the template from an AfD in progress. It hangs around for five days, max, while an article that's gone is gone for good. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A noticeboard has been tried and generally doesn't work, in part, because the nature of the AfD timeframe. We just want the article to improve if it can, talking about whether it can be improved is best for the AfD. You're also presuming the tag is added at the beginning of the AfD and often it's not. Once the AfD tag goes on the clock is ticking. -- Banjeboi 17:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly OT: We're able to put the tag "WP:ARS/Tagged" on our User or Talk pages, which gives us a current list of articles that have been tagged for Rescue; the list updates automatically every time a Rescue tag is added or deleted. Why not a similar tag to generate an AfD list? Radiopathy (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And how many articles are at AfD at any one time?? How many of that huge number are actually worth saving? For me, it would be of no benefit to simply have all umpteen thousand in one long list and then have to have to slog through them one by one by one. The Rescue template is a tremendous tool for improvement of the project by those willing to do so. It works. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am far more concerned with the remarkably lame "reasons" given for deletion, i.e. essentially nothing more than WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JNN. Why none of those participants are actually working on a merge or redirect is disappointing and unwikipedic. No one provides any legitimate reason whatsoever as to why they could not be merged or redirected at worst. I am strongly considering closing these as "no consensus" given the that the only reasons presented for deletion essentially are of the "I don't like it nature" or references to WP:FICT, which isn't a guideline or policy. Regarding this, please note that sources do attest to its notability, i.e. "the story most familiar with US audiences" and that is verifiable in published books. Deletion is supposed to be a last resort per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. Calling for redlinking verifiable information that is relevant to all the editors who worked on these pages and who view them rather than at worst, transwiking, merging or even redirecting, is downright baffling if not to be blunt shameful. Are we here to write an encyclopedia not for ourselves but for our reader or not? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP has the easiest access to the minds of Internet Users. We invite them to join and participate and then we abort their efforts for irresponsible and questionable reasons. As Internet usage has evolved, WP must evolve with it. The goal should be to service our customer, to make us more timely and useful and user friendly. Deletion fails to take into account the fragility of our new editors. The deletion notification basically says...."Well, it's just not good enough for us. And rather than help you make it better, we will make it (and maybe you) disappear!"

The template opens up possibilities for newbie involvement. I fail to see how that can be bad for Wikipedia. Every effort should be made to change the message that we send the new guy on the block. We should communicate not excommunicate.--Buster7 (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: as a useful tool that has led to the improvement of many articles. If there is a problem with specific editors abusing it, then someone should outline what they mean by abuse in a guideline, or discuss how to deal with this template being used as a "weapon" to skew deletion discussions. Randomran (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like some others here, I have started helping to improve articles that I wouldn't have known needed cleanup, etc, without the Rescue tag. Myself and a couple other editors worked on Tunbridge Wells Grammar School for Boys just this week shortly after the AfD nomination. Although UK grammar schools are quite notable (the nominator felt that they weren't), the article was poorly sourced and full of WP:ADVERT, and the wrong infobox was in place. Within literally a few hours, problems were fixed, and the deletion discussion itself (about notability) convinced the nominator to withdraw. The result was Keep. This tag is a good tool that calls attention to articles that have problems which can be resolved quickly. BTW, I have questioned notability on a few tagged articles as well; I don't support "Keep spamming". Radiopathy (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When the rescue process works, there's an improved article. When it doesn't, an article the community judges inadequate gets deleted. A good outcome either way. I cannot see why anyone who actually cares about improving Wikipedia would object to either. DGG (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To counter claims of ARS membership advocating drive-by "Keep votes";

...I have participated in 21 articles up for deletion. I advocated Delete in 3 (editing one of them). I edited/improved 9. I e-mailed the principal of a high school to get more input to include (no response). I proudly still participate in the continued editing of Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama which is a prime example of an article that was saved from the trash bin to become (and will continue to be) a credit to Wikipedia. I am very sure that other editors that are here can make similar claims of fact.--Buster7 (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of inarguable fact: The Rescue template does much good in improving the project and ANY template is prone to misuse by individual editors. With respects, just recently an editor sent two articles to AfD as being non-notable. I was drawn to the discussions specifically because of the template and not only helped improve the articles, but actually got the nominator to become involved in the rescue. The first has now had an 8.5x expansion and an approved DYK. The second is still in process and will make another terrific addition to the project. Would these have been improved through the 5 day period of AfD? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But I sure know that I would not have randomly found them amongst the thousands of articles sitting in ashheap... specially since I do not study the talk pages of each and every article at AfD... and so they might well have been deleted from the project without a cry or a squeek. The template, sitting temporarily on the article's front page, nestled against the AfD tag, serves to the greatest good of the project. If it is felt that any editor is misusing templates, no matter what kind, that is a matter to be dealt with with that editor, not the membership whole of the ARS, and not by removing a tool that improves the entire project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its time to close this discussion as a solid keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can argue it, trivially. You haven't shown that this template is inextricable from WP:ARS's operation; ARS could maintain a list in a number of ways. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the most important questions to consider... has use of the rescue template caused any article to be kept that should have been deleted? And conversely, has the use of the AfD tag ever caused an article to be deleted that should have been kept? That ARS feels the tag is is important to our mission to improve the project, should be reason enough to keep... just as are tags for any project. And isn't imrproving wiki the entire reason we stick around.... even with all the bickering and infighting? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has any article been saved by having this large, obtrusive template from a borderline partisan Wikiproject displayed prominently at the top of the article that would not have been saved by a less intrusive or less partisan method or by a method that lends itself to less abuse?

I don't think you've addressed the argument against this other than the "ARS is a bad idea" argument (unless your "ARS wants to do it this way, and ARS is good, so we should do it this way" argument is the response to it!). Saving articles is a net good, but it doesn't mean we should be blind to all other considerations. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Many. Examples have been given and not refuted. One very cogent example is the quite recent The Book of Time (novel series). Tagged for deletion on March 6, tagged for rescue shortly thereafter, and now a terrific addition to the project. I would not have even ben aware of its existance if it had not been properly tagged as worth rescuing, from among the thousands currently on death row. Thank you Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example of an article that was improved because this giant tag was on the article, and not because the article was brought to the attention of ARS members? Where did you show this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example of both actually: an article that WAS improved BECAUSE the tag (size can always be changed) was on an article that then brought it to the attention Rescue Squad members, and others. As a member of the ARS I can attest that I had not know the article even existed before the tag.

The article was tagged for AfD on 03:06, 6 March 2009 diff

User:Artw added a reference 03:48, 6 March 2009 diff

User:Mollymoon at AfD opines a keep as improvements are possible 03:09, 6 March 2009 diff

The nom requests evidence of notability 03:11, 6 March 2009 diff

User:Artw tagged it for rescue 04:03, 6 March 2009 diff

User:Reyk opined delete as he is unable to find reliable sources diff

I find the tag and begin adding sources to the article itself 05:27, 6 March 2009 diff

I then visit the AfD and opine a keep per sources easily found 05:31, 6 March 2009 diff

User:Reyk changes "delete" to "abstain" 05:43, 6 March 2009 diff

The nom questions viability of sources 05:56, 6 March 2009 diff

I return to the article and continue expanding and sourcing to meet past and current concerns of nom 15:27 through 23:09 6 March diff

User:DGG speaks toward actual relibility of sources and opines keep 06:12, 6 March 2009 diff

I point out that article has been expanded and more thoroughly souced since nom's last comment 06:25, 6 March 2009 diff

Nom again questions sources 06:37, 6 March 2009 diff

I stress that children's books meet requirements of WP:BOOK 07:07, 6 March 2009 diff

User:Kyaa the Catlord opines a keep and points out enWiki problems with non-english sources/books 07:08, 6 March 2009 diff

The nom questions my explanation about children's books, and points of to and User:Kyaa the Catlord that the nom is not due to systemic bias07:12, 6 March 2009 diff

USer:Kyaa the Catlord responds that anglocentrism of enWiki is well documented 07:58, 6 March 2009 diff

USer:Artw asks for non-english sources 09:05, 6 March 2009 diff

User:DiverScout speaks toward sources being available and opine a keep per WP:BOOK 09:55, 6 March 2009 diff

I'll stop with the blow-by-blow. Looking at the AfD itself, one can see that several Rescue Squad members visited other than myself and each pointed out that per WP:BEFORE sources were easy to find and that per WP:BOOK the article should be kept.

Of course this is in the histories of the article and the AfD. At 23:56, 6 March 2009, the nom returned to the article and began a series of exansion and sourcing. And at 00:14, 7 March 2009 withdrew the nomination, and we both continued further expansion and sourcing. Would this have happened without the Rescue tag? Maybe. But just as likely not. It stands though as a perfect example of how the Resuce tag rallied members and non-members alike to look in and speak up. Would the nom have been so willing to revisit the article and even help in its improvement without the discussions generated at the AfD, or without Rescue Squad members themselves lighting the way? I respect the nom greatly, but have to say it is unlikely... specially in light of earlier dismissals of the sources that were slowly being added.

Point being, the article was tagged for rescue. The tag caught the attention of rescuers, who then performed the immediate rescue. Wiki was improved. The wished for result, yes? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't that have happened if the AFD were tagged, or if the AFD tag itself had a low-key ARS flag, or if the article were flagged on talk?

ARS can't work without some way to rally the ARS crew, of course. There are other ways we can do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are thousands of AfD's I have never seen simply due to the incredible volume of things being flushed for one reason or another, I can simply point out that the tag worked for me just as it was used. Question: What is the current ration of "articles at AfD" versus "Articles tagged for rescue" 3 to 1? 10 to 1? 10000 to one? I Don't need a crystal ball to say that I might be able to look at and help a few articles at a time.... but thousands at once? And who is the detreminer of possible salvagability? The AfD nominator? I explained how it happened for me. A) Saw the tag, B) Began work on improving what was obvious fron that front page a topic that had merit, C) opinined at the AfD. D) Article became a worthy addition to the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARS is not some well-orchestrated political action committee, with daily staff meetings and planning sessions. We all help in a hit-or-maiss manner from our homes in the morning or evening, or from workplaces during lunch or breaks as we are able... all the time fight the ticking of the clock. Any "additional" steps involved in order to "notify members" acts only to steal time away from the simple fact of rescue. Relegating such "notice" to members only does not bring a "Potential for Rescue" to the attention of non-ARS members who themselves might assist if they see a tag stating that an article might be saved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting my comments is kind of annoying.

Again. Bringing these AFDs to the project's attention is good. Gooooooooooooooooood. The misuse is a separate issue, and I wouldn't want to delete this because of misuse unless there were some significant harm being done that outweighed the good. (Newish users spamming "Keep per nom" is a little annoying but harmless.)

ARS needs a way to rally the ARS crew to the articles to get them cleaned up before the AFD ends. (Good thing.) Why does it have to be this intrusive way? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARS has a way to ralley not only the few ARS members, but ALL editors that a specifc article or few articles might be able to be brought into line before the clock ticks to zero. If one feels the tag is "Giant" or "intrusive", then modifying size is a different matter than deleting it or relegating it to a page not usually seen by readers/new editors. I can imagine that a smaller template would just as acceptable, just as are other front page tags for "expansion" or "sourcing" or fact" or "notability", etc. That is a different matter than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and can easily be discussed at the ARS talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does this rally "all editors"? It's not a cleanup tag; cleanup tags identify specific problems with an article, whereas this is no more specific than ((cleanup)). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator; <devil>side-note to the abusers of this: you should be arguing for a merge with the AfX templates so that all del-noms are on autorescue</devil> Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thousands of editors nominating for deletion. Dozens trying to save a few articles. Yes, that makes sense. Sorry, for the smiling irony. The merge would result in marked loss of effectiveness of a project set up to assist all other projects. There is so very much nominated for deletion that quite deservedly needs to be removed, that then tagging even the totally unsalvagable for rescue makes a mockery of what ARS tries to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  ;) Wrapping my comment with a pseudo-element 'devil' meant Devil's advocacy. It seems to me that this template rather automagically appears on most any article nominated for deletion lately (i.e. it's abused) so they're effectively using it as a tit-for-tat edit to the initial AfD. If the rescue project is focused on truly rescuing only inappropriately nominated articles, it could be that others are hijacking the project and a sign of recognition of that would be the project removing inappropriate uses of the template. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a perfectly reasonable view, but it is flawed. Because many times articles on notable subjects are sent to AfD. A string of Delete votes pile on - because, well the nom's observations seem spot on - until the right editor(s) come along and see the potential or have a better understanding of the subject. Then they point out references, notability or other details that had been missed. So you're asking ARS to play premature closer in effect and judge the notability ourselves. Well, if AfDs are made incorrectly and delete votes are made with less then complete vetting I certainly don't want ARS to start playing judge and jury when no one else seems to be hitting 100%. And just to be frank here - who cares? I mean if someone slaps the tag on some putrid article that has absolutely no chance ... who cares? The article will be pfft in 5 days or less. I think ARS members are mature enough to cope with looking at a misplaced tag and saying "No, the patient will die". I would be more swayed if the tag wasn't tied to AfD. And yet again, were getting sweeping allegations of abuse. Really? Abuse? I'm not sure who is experience this alleged abuse because the ARS folks are pretty much just doing their rescue work. When drama presents itself we sort it out and move on. If there is abuse and you don't feel like you can confide in the project then I suggest asking a trusted admin or ally to forward the concern so it can be addressed. Abuse bad, rescue tag good. -- Banjeboi 12:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And if there is a misuse and ANY tag, it is a matter to be discussed with that misuser, and not as a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  @all. I'm fine with notable articles being rescued. Opinions will, of course, vary as to just which articles that covers. Do we need ARS at all? AfD will not often delete a truly notable article; indeed, it often won't delete a non-notable article. Even if ARS is warranted, why should it slap a tag on the article in addition to the AfD? And skip the notion of the tag going on the talk page; the possibility of 'rescue' is implied by the AfD; Feel free to edit the article. This tag is not needed. As to abuse, that seems obvious from some of the comments here and stuff I've seen in the last few weeks. It does seem to me that this project is about judging notability itself;

  • Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron#What the Rescue template is for:

  • Articles on notable subjects going through AfD
  • If an article has been tagged for deletion (Afd), and you feel it meets the above guidelines, then you can flag an article for rescuing by…

  So, ya, ARS is asking editors to judge notability outside of AfD

  And, again, it seems that that project has been hijacked by the Evil Inclusionist^® Cabal. Mebbe Clean House?

  Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  How many articles have been rescued that were not brought up to all proper standards for Wikipedia? If notability is not met, if the article is not improved to meet all concerns at an AfD, it gets deleted. The tag makes no judgement call that is not either confirmed by or overturned by the AfD process. However, thank you for the herring. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to talkpage. There's no need for it to be on the article. By the way, someone above was asking for evidence of AfD abuse? - well here you are - check - note the flood of WP:ITSNOTABLEs from ARS members. ARS members spamming AfDs with "Keep" votes? Yup. If this is done properly, it's useful, but at the moment it just seems to be under the impression that anything it can save, even if its completely unnotable (a park football team?) or unencyclopedic, is some sort of victory against the evil deletionist cabal - and that just fosters division between editors. Black Kite 11:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please explain why such usage or such happenings are the fault of the template? I think they can only be the fault of those editors. And since when is the number of keep-!votes a decisive factor in an AFD? SoWhy 11:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really not proof of anything except that you likely don't have very compelling proof. Just as we were all new to Wikipedia at some point we were all also new to AFD. Poorly cast !votes going in any direction suggest editors that are simply less experienced in AfD protocol. The same goes with the general trench warfare mentality. As users mature hear that melts away a bit if it was even there to begin with. These still remain issues to be dealt with on a user level just they always have been. -- Banjeboi 12:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And has any article so tagged EVER been saved from deletion if it were not ultimately found to be notable? No. Has any non-tagged aticle been tossed that could have been improved and kept? Yes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to talkpage. Currently, either someone either knows about the rescue project and sees the notice from the project page, which means they can go from the talk page to the front, or someone who has never heard of the project is on the article page and sees that it is up for rescue. So is the point to notify people who don't know about this project that their article is up for rescue? Moral support for the article creators? Is it just to notify people about the project (with an huge advantage no other group has)? Also, again, is this intrinsically tied to the AFD process, so it really isn't a neutral organization for everyone? Or is it? It's pretty hard to claim that this is not just an inclusionist project and that deletionists or whatever are invited, because everyone is interested in just bringing articles up to speed, and then to claim that it's so tied to the AFD process that it must be on the front page. This should not be a debate on the policy of the project but its supporters are not winning any fans by insisting that it must be on the front page, it must be as big as possible, it cannot be some small hidden category, and that it's never been abused. It's a project, it needs to be cleaned up like all others, and its supporters should try to look at the legitimate criticism and work with it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All criticism is looked at and most valid concerns addressed. I personally spend a fair amount of my time here doing exactly that. All our talk archives are open to all and anyone can wade through to see what decisions were made or not and who posted what and where. I really want to challenge you here. If an article is so bad that it is slated for deletion then who cares if in addition to the rather obvious AfD tag there is a rescue tag as well. Both will be gone in 5 days or less. Having the rescue tag anywhere else will not help articles improve and that's pretty much is what ARS is doing. And no were not an inclusionist project, there are inclusionist projects available for those who want to work in that area. We have worked hard to maintain neutrality and frankly we don't check credentials at the door. Anyone who wants to participate can. By the nature of the work we do my guess is that it attracts people who want to improve articles whereas my understanding is that deletionists look for content that should be removed in some fashion. Anyone who is able to offer constructive insight, IMHO, is likely helping because AfD is a community process. -- Banjeboi 12:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A clear and strong consensus has been established and a solid keep is supported.--Buster7 (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• An exmaple Where this template was being mis-used Character Deaths --DFS454 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An example instead that slapping the rescue tag on an unsalvageable article won't do anything. Note that the admin who deleted that page has !voted to keep the template. Actually, I'm not sure that combining two AfD'ed articles into a new page really qualifies as a G4, but a SNOW delete was well underway before the template was added. I would never have added that template to that article, and you might want to have a chat with the author who did (A Nobody) about what he hoped to accomplish and why he thought it was salvageable. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and populate defined: Merge the rescue template with the AfD and MfD templates, and expand the available parameters to allow inclusion of the ARS links. Allowing the XfD templates to be populated with material and resources which provide acceptable methods of article improvement, would ensure a NPOV posturing of Wikipedia when an editor feels that Wikipedia could benefit from such "tagmentation" (sorry, the past 8 years in the US have left me feeling rather creative in my use of our vocabulary).

• • Now Assuming that this individual nomination is not an assault on a perceived threat or implied group, (such as the ARS); that it is not simply a last-ditch, scorched-earth attempt to make a point, and is indeed a good faith attempt to maintain a clean and tidy wiki as the mops are intended for - I'll add my small voice to this crowded discussion. This peculiar nomination does indeed contain elements of overlapping topics, and tentacles which are deeply entwined within the very culture of Wikipedia; however, much of that particular thought is better left to other boards and discussions. The "Rescue" template is, in no small way, an icon to the ongoing, unspoken, yet undeniable, struggle between the so-called inclusionists and delitionists. Given the significance of this individual item, it is my hope that the closing admin will give due consideration, and sober attention to the desires of the community at large. The vision of Wikipedia is to provide the sum of human knowledge. Sum being defined by Mirriam-Webster as - 2: "the whole amount". I can't imagine that Jimbo pulled that particular word out of thin air on a whim.

• • While the 1½ year old rescue template is a clear and valiant effort at the continued addition to our wonderful website, it must also be understood that a certain amount of subtraction must take place in order to maintain a relevant, respected, and orderly presentation. While several self-described inclusionists and delitionists may have inferred a certain amount of animosity over various threads, actions, and posts - Wikipedia is not the place for that type of emotionalism. Passion for improvement should be our driving and guiding influence while editing. The rescue template, which is the moniker of the ARS, should be viewed as a valuable and respected effort to improve our wiki - not as a hindrance or trivial tag to be swept away with the high-school garage bands. The Rescue template in general, and the ARS specifically provide this valuable service to our community, and as such, the template must not be allowed to be swept away. It may be obvious that it can be difficult to stay on topic with this particular nomination; but, as compromise is a valuable tool in reaching a consensus, I've posted my "Merge and populate" !vote for this template. I hope that the "Rescue" template can survive this TfD, or at the very least the idea of rescuing poorly developed articles will continue to thrive. Perhaps the merge thought of inclusionists and deletionists working together could alleviate some of the distasteful and disruptive XfD debates, and allow more time for constructive editing and expansion of Wikipedia. Thank You. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 21:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Benjiboy put it very well. Deleting or moving to the talk page would only make the encyclopedia worse. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or move to talk page. This template is a self-reference, but unlike other article-top tags (such as cleanup, cite sources, inline references), it is not at all useful to readers of the article. Furthermore, it does not indicate important information about the future of the article, such as AFD tags do. In short, it's a wikiproject tag, not something that ordinary non-editors need to be alerted to. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it encourages editors to improve the article in question and provides suggestions as to how they can improve it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but that's why it should go on talk pages, if anywhere. Tags on an article should only indicate problems with an article that non-editors ought to know about. To me, this template does not seem to meet that criterion. Cheers, CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your logic implies that AfD and CSD tags should then go to the talkpages as well, as "Tags on an article should only indicate problems with an article that non-editors ought to know about"... and these others fit that same criteria. And what would a tag for cleanup or sourcing mean any more or less to a non-editor than Rescue or AfD? Of course, everyone editing these pages was once a non-editor. Do you think those tags might have been part of what encouraged them to then become active editors? ANd unlike "Project tags", the rescue tag is extremely temporary, and is on an article for less time than an AfD tag. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously, there's a line to be drawn, but my sense is that a tag saying that an article might not be here tomorrow is of much greater interest to a reader than a tag saying that people want to fix it. Similarly, cleanup tags indicate a deficiency in an article and encourage readers to realize that the article is not of the quality that they may expect from more established Wikipedia articles. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that a template is sometimes misused is not a convincing argument for its deletion in my opinion.--Dycedarg ж 01:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Deletion notice appears on the article, so why shouldn't rescue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unionhawk (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed yes.... as all the AfD tag shares it that the article is being considered for deletion... while a properly placed Rescue tag says "Hey, someone thinks this can be saved! If you are so inclined, check the AfD and get to work on improving it". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, If people were to follow WP:UCS, we wouldn't have this nomination...(its really quite sad that the rescue template needs rescuing) This template is essential to a major project that has helped rescue hundreds of articles that would otherwise be deleted. I do agree with User:A Nobody that lately people are prodding and afding articles that they shouldn't. For many editors, I am begining to see that rather than tag an article (or better yet improve it_, they would rather start an afd and have other editors argue out whether the article is worth keeping. The template does nothing more than suggest people find reliable sources and an invitation to the AFD disccussion. It also helps by showing readers that while the article is up for deletion, there is an ongoing effort to save it. I understand the nominator's concerns, but believe that for the template to be effective, it should be on the article itself(together with the AFD). I don't fully understand what you mean by "push voters to the deletion discussion"...in fact the template says: Please read the deletion discussion to find areas that need work...it never suggests that they participate. In addition, AFD's as per WP:AFD are not determined by votes but rather by recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. And as for the occassional misuses...we can't let the few ruin it for the many(in this case, the good certainly does outweigh the bad) Smallman12q (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This template is essential^{[citation needed]} to a major project that has helped rescue hundreds of articles that would otherwise be deleted."

This is the "ARS is good/bad, so this is good/bad" red herring that has dominated this discussion. Why is this particular template essential, over less intrusive alternatives? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the Merge the rescue template with the AfD and MfD templates, and expand the available parameters to allow inclusion of the ARS links idea by Editor:Ched above.--Buster7 (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Strong Keep. How is this template detrimental to Wikipedia? It appears at the top of the article (where many other notices nest)? It invites editors to improve articles? It mobilizes members to save articles that shouldn't have been nominated in the first place? This template is not "proof against deletion", nor is it an invitation for !vote fraud. It takes exactly one editor to add a highly-visible call for deletion; why should the call for rescue be any less prominent? There are currently 22 articles in Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue, out of 440 articles in Category:AfD debates. A "rescue ratio" of 5% seems inconsistent with all the abuse allegations above. – 74  03:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I'd prefer the template not have as much redundancy when compared to ((((subst:afd)))) (however I don't see a simple change to be made to fix it), I don't see any problem with it being below the ((((subst:afd)))) on the article page. Also keep because 3rd time's not a charm. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Template only encourages improvements, and doesn't look bad. End of story! Magnetic Rag (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not keep as is. I'm neutral as to whether it should be moved to be talk-page only (if it does belong to ARS), merged as an option in XfDs (if it did not belong to ARS, and it were appropriate, that's where it should be), or removed entirely. I gave my arguments in the last TfD, and they've been repeated here. The problem is that it has not been used properly. (I don't mean merely that it has been used improperly, but there have been very few proper uses.) I don't know whether it can generally be used properly, but it hasn't been. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And would someone add a pointer to all the previous TfD's on it. I !voted in one, but I'm not sure I know where all of them are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please show where in policy we delete a service tag such as this template because editor(s) have used it improperly? This has been alleged and answered that if this is improper use it should be addressed on a user level. Also do you have any evidence that there have been "very few proper uses"? This would go a long way to understanding your assertions. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say editors have used it improperly. I said editors have not used it properly. There is a difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Tomatoe Tomatoh. Since evidence has been offered that editors have used it properly, please show the instance(s) where they have not, rather than simply making the allegation. And if editors have "not used it properly", isn't that to be handled the same as when any template is "not used properly"? If not, then I think it may be time then to nominate the AfD template itself then, as it is "not used properly" far more often than almost any other on Wikipedia. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per A/74.137.108.115. There is nothing detrimental about having this template reside in an area where multiple similar (as in, relates to the quality and validity of content in a given article) templates sit. To the ARS-Inclusionist cabal question, there was a big spike in this template's usage about 6 days ago, that spike has died down. Allegations of !vote stacking in that period are pretty silly because AfDs are decided by argument merit, not !votes (or they should be, anyway). The template is not exclusive to any person of one wiki-ideology (which does away with WP:CANVASS fears). Basically, this seems to be a nomination out of general irritation. In any case, the template serves to improve the encyclopedia and shouldn't be deleted. It ESPECIALLY shouldn't be made redundant to the deletion tag. That would render ARS completely useless, per arguments above. Sorry for the long-windedness, it is quite late. SMSpivey (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, allegations nothing, there is at least one obvious case of someone bloc-!voting on ARS-tagged articles. This is a harm to concensus-building at AFD. That said, such abusable lists would have to exist for the project to exist, so you're not talking about this template so much as the project's value. This is definitely not the venue for that. Having taken as given that the project will continue to exist, that it needs a basic set of tools to do its work is reasonable. The debate is then about the best form those tools should take, and if this template in particular is the best tool for that job. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please be specific and include a link. I don't doubt you, I just want to be able to see what everyone is complaining about and offer my $0.02 on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This still doesn't mean the template should be targeted, that remains a user concern. -- Banjeboi 19:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep See swimming with dolphins and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming with dolphins for just one good use of the tag. Template:Rescue is perfect for calling attention to crappy articles that are nonetheless notable and salvageable. The deletion process is not about winning, but getting the right result. Wkdewey (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the deletion process is not about winning, the crux of the matter, as far as i'm concerned.pohick (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fairness, it's a lesson that some inclusionists could learn too. Wkdewey (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, after having suffered from editors, who abuse the speedy delete, and delete process, i'm afraid i'm not responsive to labeling. (i suppose that the win at all costs, any argument in a AfD mentality, is a result of the 'voting' process) whether it stays or goes will not change the fundamental civility problem. pohick (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I've used this template to signal others that I thought topics had the sources to be tenable, and have responded to its use by colleagues by locating sources for worthy articles. It does a great job of creating a subcategory of articles for deletion that might be salvagable, thus focusing the time and effort of rescuers efficiently and promoting productive rather than reactionary behaviour at AfD. Skomorokh 06:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You don't see people swarming to vote in mass on something(with the exception of here of course, it the largest turnout ever). It does improve the quality of many articles, adding in notable references, so they meet the requirements for inclusion. Dream Focus 10:49, 13 March 2009 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Real Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not sure that all the shows on a given television channel are logical or useful as a template. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant to Category:Real TV television series, which does a better job. I don't really see the need for a template here. Robofish (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2009 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Punchout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is not in use and unlikely to be as none of the characters in the series are notable enough for their own articles. TJ Spyke 00:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. - Fastily (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom.--Sloane (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2009 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Happy‑melon 17:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Punchoutmrdream (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as above. TJ Spyke 00:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom.--Sloane (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2009 (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.