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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Translink (SEQ) station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single useOrphan; non-standard appearance; redundant ((Infobox station)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace It looks like the creator of this custom infobox converted other stations back to the standard version, but missed the one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have boldly replaced this single use template and orphaned it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 21:19, 14 January 2012 (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 Merge. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Barcelona station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Spain station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The former is redundant to the latter; and both to ((Infobox station)). I've just found an article using both! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace These templates are only used for a few select stations in Barcelona and, as you have noted, is illogically duplicated for the only two uses of "Infobox Spain station". Every other station in Spain, that has an Infobox, uses the standard one. This looks like a haphazard Barcelona centred project by a single editor without any consideration for the wider picture in Spain. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm the creator of both templates and i've been thinking about this. And yes, you're right. At frist I thought into create a template similar to ((Infobox London station)), but these are different situations. And with ((Infobox Spain station)), the same problem. Just say that I'm sorry and I'll complete my project to improve all articles relationated with railways in Barcelona using ((Infobox station)) when needed. Mllturro (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nn-warn2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an old user warning template for the removal of CSD templates from an article. It is redundant to the Template:Uw-speedy1 series and it misrepresents policy by stating you can remove the tag if you can indicate why the subject "is really notable". Article creators are not allowed remove speedy deletion templates and "really notable" =/= "credible claim of significance or importance". Yoenit (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2012 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why does this exist, when the <small> tag exists? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Note: Template is protected and cannot be tagged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Weak Keep since you're supposed to use wikimarkup instead of HTML markup, and this makes it wikimarkup instead of HTML markup... 76.65.128.132 (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, small tags are generally deprecated in modern HTML, so keeping more accessible markup here is better. also, we have other similar templates, like template:resize, template:nobold, template:smallcaps, ... Frietjes (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This provides editors with more layout options, just as the template:resize, template:nobold, template:smallcaps do. It's also easier to utilize, compared to typing "<small>Example</small>", which produces the same result: Example. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 16 January 2012 (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. This explanation is, of course, going to be rather long. I'll understand if people don't want to go all the way through it ;p.

Template:Rescue is a template used by the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS), a group of volunteers who work to improve "at-risk" articles, as a way of notifying their members when an article is on the verge of deletion and thus in need of immediate work. Both the ARS and this template have been controversial, with three previous nominations for deletion, as well as AN/I discussions that complain of the ARS's (alleged) bias or militiarism, and consider this template an enabler of that attitude at Articles for Deletion. Most recently, another AN/I thread was started, again complaining of the approach ARS members took to deletion discussions and discussing this template's position. Following a long and incredibly complex discussion I haven't the energy or RAM to begin summarising, User:Northamerica1000 procedurally nominated Template:Rescue for deletion here. This was because of his urge to resolve the discussion and have it move to a more appropriate place, which he is to be strongly commended for.

Because it was a procedural nomination, Northamerica1000 did not directly give a rationale (he personally supports keeping the template), but instead used the words of others, stating " Some users consider use of the template as canvassing, other's state that it's used to notify other users to !vote "keep" in AfD discussions". This, along with other arguments put forward in the ensuing discussion (which are, briefly summarised, that the template is irrelevant as it only does things which other templates already do), is the rationale for deletion; I see my role as to take this rationale, investigate whether the ensuing comments have validated it, and then investigate whether those same comments have provided an adequate rebuttal. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion lists several criteria for deleting templates, including whether or not it violates policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV (the latter of which, WP:CANVASS is closely related to), and whether it is irrelevant and has been subsumed by other, more general purpose or useful templates. The alleged use of this template for canvassing would fall under the first category, while the issue that other, general-purpose AfD templates do the same job would fall under the latter. Both are valid rationales for deletion, if justified.

On the canvassing front, I see a lot of people in this discussion saying "I've seen it happen". I'd be very uncomfortable deleting on these grounds alone, for the same reason that I'd find it awkward to close an AfD as "keep" because people have been saying "I've totally seen sources. Totally. They're around here somewhere". Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence, and accusing a large group of users of ganging up to sway consensus in their favour is just such an assertion. We are all editors here, and we should all remember that we are here for the same reason; to create a font of knowledge for the world. Anything that provokes or implies splits in our culture should be backed up by evidence. The same applies to the canvassing assertions in the discussion, which seem to do nothing but provoke further discontent without evidence. In future, such statements should be thoroughly (and cautiously) investigated before the person making them sees fit to post them publicly.

There is more traction for the idea that the template serves no useful purpose due to the presence of other, more relevant, deletion tags. Under current guidelines, all interested parties should be notified about an AfD of an article they have been involved in, and most wikiprojects maintain streams of AfDs within their area that people can see and get involved in, should they have an opinion on the article. These rules and streams are uncontroversial and provide easy mechanisms for interested people to get involved in deletion discussions. This contrasts with the Rescue template, which as many people have said below creates controversy while seemingly adding nothing of value to deletion discussions. This Templates for Discussion thread is, even without the background to it, evidence of that. I note User:Fluffernutter's point, which is echoed by many others; that when you have something that provides no additional functionality but strife, the easiest way to resolve this strife (and not, in the end, reduce functionality) is to delete it. That is precisely what consensus says I should do.

Deletion discussions are not bean-counting exercises, and I have attempted to get down to the meat of the issues rather than simply counting the bolded words; I will note that if I had simply counted, I would have come up with the same result, since (by my count, apologies if it's a bit off) the 34 keeps are far outweighed by the 53 editors calling for this template's deletion. That number - 89 editors - is probably one of the largest I've ever seen in a deletion discussion, and I tend to specialise in large-scale discussions. Those users who commented, on whatever side, thank you for your participation; I will understand if some editors wish to take this to WP:DRV, and if anyone can point to some (neutral) functionality that should be integrated into other AfD templates, I'm happy to undelete for the purpose of retrieving that.

Ironholds (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Added request for comment, requesting community input. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Per a discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents – Article Rescue Squadron on AfD, several users have questioned the rationale for having this template on Wikipedia. Some users consider use of the template as canvassing, other's state that it's used to notify other users to !vote "keep" in AfD discussions. Therefore, I've started this deletion discussion, as this seems to be a more appropriate place for the matter to be resolved at this time. (I've already posted comments regarding my opinions regarding this matter at the listing above for Administrators' noticeboard – incidents.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Addendum to nomination): I've started a discussion to add the ((Find sources)) parameter to the AfD template Here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Nominator advances no argument for deletion, per WP:SK #1. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a. I think he does when he says "Some users consider use of the template as canvassing"

b. Speedy Keep says it applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and related pages, as this is Templates for discussion it is appropriate to have a discussion on the template. Mtking ^(edits) 04:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Delete there is no need for a project to ever put it's own template on an article page, it is also the only template (that I know of) whose instructions proscribe how it is to be removed. Mtking ^(edits) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ATD, the solution to that is to move the Article Rescue Squadron out of WikiProject space, and back as a collaborative project like WP:3O.

    More substantively, the template serves an encyclopedia-preserving purpose: to bring attention to content that at least one editor in good standing believes can be improved through the addition of sources.

    The removal of the template is predefined as the duration of the AfD discussion, which is the limit of when it makes sense. Thus, it's also one of only two templates (that I can remember, ((hangon)) being the other) that can only be placed on an an article if another specific template is already present. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The legitimate purposes of the template are covered by other less partisan templates - people are notified of a deletion through the normal process of AFD, and articles in need of improvement can be tagged with any number of existing improvement tags. I also echo Mtking's sentiment above that wikiprojects should not have article-space templates, and that of some users in the aforementioned ANI thread that this template seems to act more as a rally flag for a particular group of people with a specific ideology of inclusionism (bordering on canvassing, given the single-purposed nature of the participants of the ARS project) that threatens to unbalance legitimate discussion. An editor demonstrated in the ANI thread that on numerous occasions, the template was used to attract vote-stacking to an AFD and not for the project's stated purpose of actually improving the article. In short, this template serves no purpose that is not more than adequately covered by other more neutral templates, it brings unbalancing attention to AFD discussions, and should be deleted. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The AN/I discussion includes vastly overblown arguments concerning the misuse of the template, but none for the deletion of the template itself. One wants to AGF, but it would seem the purpose of the attempt tp delete the template is to hobble the ARS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the purpose is/was to hobble the ARS then WP:MfD on the project page would have been better. My issue with the template is it it is the only project that gets to add a template to main space, it can't be removed even if other editors agree it was added in a way that did not follow the instructions for it's use and it is often used in ways that appear to be canvassing. Mtking ^(edits) 05:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Project's don't normally get to place mainspace templates, and further the existance of an "unremovable" template should not be decided at the project level. Additionally, while "Afd is not cleanup," this template is redundant: Anyone who's commenting on and Afd discussion should already be looking for sources, etc. Also, and as the smallest portion of this delete opinion, it's use is associated with sub-par AfD discussions. (I.e. This template is disruptive.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- as has been mentioned above, why is the ARS the only wikiproject allowed to place their template in the mainspace? And why do they get to impose their self-serving rules on whether or not it can be removed on everyone else? This would be inappropriate for a respectable wikiproject. That one with a history of canvassing, battleground behaviour and slipperyness is allowed to do this is staggering. Reyk _YO! 05:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per my comment here, I do not believe it serves a useful purpose. —Dark 06:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Has anyone tagged the template for rescue yet? More seriously, I think the argument about canvassing has a lot of validity - whenever I see that an article has been tagged I can generally list the ARS members who will shortly show up and vote to keep. This behaviour ought to have limited effect because the closing admin should discount invalid or weak votes but the problem is that many of the ARS members who actively campaign in AFD have an overly generous interpretation of RS. What often happens is that an impressive but highly tangential source is presented and a block vote then asserts that the article should be kept. Alternatively an unreliable source is used and the arrival on the scene of ARS stalwarts has the effect of skewing the debate by creating a local consensus that unreliable sources are reliable. If this isn't challenged by a detailed analysis of the sources than this can, and does, distort the outcome of the discussion and allows articles to remain that should be deleted. On the other hand, there is also a valid argument that if you want to have an article deleted then you should be prepared to analyse and refute sources and that its tough kaka if you can't be bothered. Previously, I haven't felt that there is a strong justification for deleting this template because the ARS would just organise in project space and already have pages listing articles that "might" be rescued. The template does have the effect of transparency in that the closing admin at least knows why the ARS voting block turned up at the discussion. The argument that the template is transcluded in mainspace and that this isn't something we allow other wikiprojects to do is new to me and I think it is a very strong argument. On that basis I would go weak delete with the expectation that this isn't going to change anything as the ARS will be able to legitimately organise in their project pages. With that caveat, I still think deletion is valid because it removes the projection of our internal politics from mainspace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think the problem isn't so much with the template, as with the documentation: "If an article has been tagged for deletion (the Afd tag) and you feel it meets the guidelines for rescue then add ((Rescue)) below the AFD tag as shown in the example below..." Wrong. Just wrong. If you 'feel' that something meets guidelines, find some evidence to back up your 'feelings', improve the article, and then add the template. Anything else is just a meaningless !vote, regardless of whether it constitutes canvassing or not. I'd suggest that the documentation should be revised to state that the template must not be added until a contributor has made a constructive attempt at article improvement - and without evidence of this, deletion of such abuse of templates should be expected behaviour. If an article deserves rescue, then rescue it - don't just say it needs rescuing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Integrate some of the instructions for improving an AfD'd article into ((afd)) (as its own paragraph within the ((ambox)), e.g. "If you think the article should be kept, improve it by..."), then delete as redundant. I don't see why this information should be on some pages but not others, and the canvassing opportunity is obvious and significant thanks to Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue, which IMHO is the real problem here. --NYKevin @355, i.e. 07:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There doesn't seem to be a case to answer here. The suggestion that this is the only project-related template allowed in mainspace is false. For example, the ((Orphan)) template is associated with WikiProject Orphanage; the ((copyvio)) template is associated with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup; &c. There seem to be hundreds of banner tags which can be placed on articles by any editor, whether they belong to a project or not. And that includes the ((Article for deletion)) template, of course. To suggest that it is ok to place a template saying that you think an article should be deleted but not ok to place a template saying that it ought to be rescued would be a systemic bias in favour of the deletionist mind-set. Our work in building the encyclopedia naturally leads to a tension between these two schools, as documented at deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia and in external sources such as Wikipedia: the missing manual. Deleting this template would send a message to the world that the ARS has been destroyed and that deletionism has won. That would not be politic because deletionism is widely perceived as one of the systemic problems with Wikipedia; making it hostile to new editors and so threatening its future. Warden (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is correct. The AfD template is fairly neutrally worded and also suggests to edit/improve the article. So, there is no need for a "rescue" template as a counterweight to the "AfD" template. Sufficient and neutrally worded rescue instructions should be inside the standard AfD template. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The AfD template reads "This article is being considered for deletion ... For more information ... read the Guide to deletion." It's all about deletion not improvement. Warden (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you cite are not comparable to the Rescue template. ((copyvio)) is not associated with Wikiproject Copyright Cleanup, it's a template used to list pages at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Even if Wikiproject Copyright Cleanup did not exist such a template would still be needed. Wikiproject Copyright Cleanup is just a Wikiproject for people who like doing work on copyright issues, including (but not limited to) Wikipedia:Copyright problems. There is no template which can be added to articles to invite members of Wikiproject Copyright Cleanup to fix it. The main purpose of the Rescue template, by contrast, is to draw the article to the attention of the members of the Article Rescue Squadron. Hut 8.5 10:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no functional difference. These templates all place the articles into relevant categories which exist to draw the attention of interested editors from relevant projects. The ARS project is just a WikiProject for people who like rescuing articles from deletion, just as the Copyright cleanup project is for people who like cleaning up copyright issues. Identical. Warden (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rescue template is part of the ARS. Not only does the bold link on the key word "rescue" take you to WP:ARS, but instructions and guidance for using the template are hosted on the ARS page, the template uses the same lifebuoy image as the ARS, and Template:Afd see also documentation even lists the template as "for items to have the Rescue Squad review". By contrast neither Template:Copyviocore nor Template:Orphan link to any Wikiproject at all. There's a difference between a template which tags a page for some task that happens to have a Wikiproject associated with it (such as ((Orphan))) and a template that is only used to mark pages for the attention of a Wikiproject (such as ((WPMILHIST))). ((Rescue)) is clearly the latter. Hut 8.5 11:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous templates which mark articles for attention and so there is no difference there. The link to a page which describes the process of rescue is obviously necessary so that editors may understand the details of what is proposed. This is little different to a speedy deletion template linking to a page which explains that variety of speedy deletion. The New Page Patrol has many such templates. The rescue process is comparatively thrifty in having only one page. This is a good thing per WP:CREEP - too many pages of instruction lead to WP:TLDR. The only unusual feature of the template is the image of the life preserver, which is cosmetic. But other mainspace templates have such graphical embellishments such as the stubs which are placed by WikiProject Stub sorting. That project has numerous types of stub template and so has many pages for its project, process and stubs. The ARS is being being attacked for being comparatively concise and modest in its operations. Perhaps it should create numerous pages too like the other projects to deflect these recurring attacks. Warden (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point. I'm arguing that the template it actually part of the article rescue squadron. I didn't point out that instructions for use are on the ARS page because I object to the existence of instructions, I pointed it out as supporting evidence for the claim that the template is part of the Wikiproject. Likewise I didn't point out the life preserver because I object to templates having images, I pointed it out as further supporting evidence (the life preserver is effectively the logo of the ARS, or at least all their symbols use it). There's a difference between a template that is actually part of a Wikiproject and a template that a Wikiproject happens to use frequently. Although new page patrollers do use cleanup tags and deletion templates frequently as part of their work these templates are not part of any new page patroller wikiproject. Now without exception all other Wikiproject templates go on the talk page. Hut 8.5 09:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Personally I would do away with the rescue template. It serves no purpose that is not already served by the existing tags that can be put on any article. The ARS can do its job just as well without this rescue template. They can go through the list of AfD just like all of us. In fact, if I were a member of the ARS, then I would consider this template somewhat disadvantageous for their purposes. Without this tag the vote of an ARS member will have normal weight, while if this Rescue tag is on, the votes of ARS members may be considered a "group vote" by the closing admin. Selected rescue instructions can be simply included in the normal AfD tag. Basically every AfD article already has a rescue tag on it, so this template is just redundant and creates unnecessary contention. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I patrol every article sent to AFD. Every day there's another hundred articles and I start by looking through their titles and the nominations. If I spot an article with promise I then look closer. Sometimes the result is already clear and no further action is needed. But if it is a borderline case where rescue activity could make a difference then I place a rescue tag. This is an efficient way of screening the dross because it saves other editors the chore of looking through everything. Nobody has time to look at everything in detail. AFD has a clear problem of declining participation and so needs efficient processes to survive. Warden (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I think it achieves just the opposite. If more participants flock to the AfD with a rescue tag on them, then it probably means there is less (or even no) participation in AfD without a rescue tag, and thus they have to be relisted several times. How does that make the process more efficient? The case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street is a typical example. First there were a lot of keep votes (even strong keeps) , mainly from ARS members. But after the mention on ANI other editors took a look and since then there are almost only delete or merge votes coming in. This hasn't made the AfD process efficient, this has only served to concentrate the efforts of participating editors in a few of the nominated articles, leaving the others waiting for weekly relists. Without rescue tags the attention of editors would be more evenly spread out, making it more smooth. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The major arguments to delete this template, as I see it, is that the ARS tag serves as a canvassing tool to vote stack, as opposed to an attempt to rally a cadre of editors to improve articles that may have questionable notability due to lack of citation or content. This argument relies on the assumption that administrators do not know or follow Wikipedia policies when closing AfDs, such as WP:NOTVOTE. This assumes bad faith, and perhaps presumes incompetence, on the part of closing administrators because they have come to a conclusion on an AfD that differed from the nominating editor's opinion. IMO, this is a thoroughly inadequate reasoning to AfD this template. The other argument is that the template is placed in the main article space. This is an interesting consideration, but I know of no existing policy or guideline that prohibits such display, particularly when other tags have been deployed (e.g. AfD or Notability tags). While it may be good to discuss whether or not this template is indeed appropriate to display in the main article space, as opposed to say, applying a tag somewhere on the Talk page where other Wikiproject tags typically reside, I do not see how it is grounds for the deletion of this template at this time. In the end, if this is an attempt to have a referendum on ARS, then the community should do so. Afterall, they don't need to tag articles with templates in order to create a list of articles that are deemed possible for rescue. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this template does not serve any useful purpose which is not better served by some other template. If an article needs more sources, needs wikification, links or any other kind of cleanup there are already templates for that. Furthermore the template serves to unbalance AfD discussions by attracting the (overwhelmingly inclusionist) members of the Article Rescue Squadron to it. Other cleanup templates do not have this effect and are not written according to polemical inclusionist language. I also agree that Wikiproject templates should not be placed in the article namespace, and I do not know of a single template with a purpose of drawing members of a certain Wikiproject to an article which is not placed on the talk page.

  An ARS member comments above that Deleting this template would send a message to the world that the ARS has been destroyed and that deletionism has won. This rhetoric is exactly the problem here: AfD is not a battleground between inclusionists and deletionists, and it is not a place where noble inclusionists equipped with lifebuoys attempt to rescue an article from evil deletionists. Any attempt to turn it into such a place is deeply harmful to the project. Hut 8.5 10:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Your user page has your score in a prominent position:

Pages deleted 7020

Pages restored 92

What's harmful to the project is such lopsided deletionism in which protecting and improving articles is held to be abnormal or improper. Warden (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man (and ad hominem) arguments. I did not criticise inclusionism, let alone suggest that protecting and improving articles is ... abnormal or improper. My position is that viewing AfD as a game or battle between two factions where the goal is to "win" is harmful, and that this template promotes the idea. My userpage has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever, and the idea that I must be a rampant deletionist just because I have deleted a little over 7000 pages is ridiculous. Hut 8.5 12:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Another thing I notice on your user page is your membership of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles, "We are a group of volunteers dedicated to reviewing and adding references to articles that are in Category:Articles lacking sources...". How do these articles get into this category? A template is placed on them in mainspace, of course. Just the same as this rescue template. Please see WP:POT. Warden (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Again you're missing an important distinction. Template:Unreferenced is not part of Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, is not a Wikiproject template, and does not exist to call the attention of members of any Wikiproject to the article. None of these things is true of Template:Rescue. Hut 8.5 12:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The exact text of such templates is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Warden (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a matter of the exact text of the template but a matter of how this template is used and who uses it. Hut 8.5 13:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I fail to understand how Hut's deletion/restoration actions have any bearing on this discussion or is an adequate indicator of iclusionism/deletionism. Restoration involves overturning another admin's decision to delete, while you can delete any article that meets the criteria for speedy deletion. It is not an indication of inclusion/deletion tendencies. It'll be like saying that you're a deletionist because you tagged more articles with CSD than submitting DR requests. I challenge you to find an admin that has (significantly) more restorations than deletions. —Dark 13:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is that we have the usual deletionist claque here, due to the canvassing on WP:ANI. Hut's user page doesn't seem to have a list of pages that he's created rather than deleted but it is instructive to inspect the first such: Shiva Hypothesis. That article was created by him over 5 years ago and still has zero references. He should attend to his own work before presuming to censure and delete the work of others. Warden (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Warden please stop the ad hominem attacks. I freely admit that article is crap but it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with this template. Labelling people who want to delete the template as "the usual deletionist claque" is only further evidence that the template fosters a battleground mentality. Hut 8.5 14:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So his comment is invalidated by an article he made 5 years ago, that does not have anything to do with the discussion in question? That is nonsensical. —Dark 03:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The relevance is to put this matter in context by showing that other cleanup projects are associated with mainspace templates and that their work and membership is imperfect too. The ARS and its activities should not be held to higher standard than other projects. Please see WP:SAUCE. Warden (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Even though I am more deletionist, I have often brought sources to AfD that allowed them to be kept. Things should not be pictured so black-white, or good against evil.

But if we want to look from black-white standpoint then try this. Just imagine there was a template that deletionists could add to any article that is already in AfD, and that template would serve no purpose that is not already served by existing tags. Imagine this template would pull more deletionists to the AfD that is tagged with it. It is very predictable that the more inclusionist editors would protest against the use of such a template, especially if there is no way to remove it before the AfD closes. That's actually what we are looking at here, but seen from the other side. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Regular cleanup tags such as ((citations missing)) do the same job of alerting editors to the issues without serving as a canvassing tool. WP:CANVASS states, under its list of "Inappropriate notifications", that "Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage" - that appears to be the exact purpose of this template. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The quote from WP:CANVASS above pertains to users messaging other users, "posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" (et al). It does not pertain to placing a template on an article that all users can view. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It has very often been considered to apply to posting to noticeboards/wikiprojects or groups of editors as well as individual editors. In this case putting the template on is notifying only those that tend to be extremists in the keep side of deletion discussions and not those on the other end of the spectrum as well. Thus it falls afoul of WP:CANVASS. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A single wikiproject does not have the right to elevate itself above all others and broadcast its dogma in article-space. There is no cause or valid reason to inform the reader that a bunch of editors are working to "save" an article. (And if there's a counter-argument of "it gets new editors interested in us", the counter-counter to that is "too bad. an article is not a proper venue for solicitation). If the ARS wishes to flag AfDs they're interested in, fine, let them tag the AfD itself with something that will make it sort on their project page. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "dogma"? The ARS tag is an indicator that there are likely sufficient substantial independent published sources extant to save an otherwise threatened piece and directs attention to these pieces. There are no more than a handful a day out of about 100 AfD nominations tagged as such. AfD is not a vote, it's rather idiotic that some people think that it is — it is more akin to a court of law in which the prosecution and the defense present their cases. If an article CAN be saved as notable due to passing GNG, it SHOULD be so saved. The ARS template helps to accomplish this. There's no "dogma" implicit in that, it's just common sense that we are all here to build the best and most comprehensive encyclopedia possible. The template helps advance the cause. Carrite (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As an encyclopaedia, our central purpose is to collect and preserve knowledge – the very opposite of deletion. Deletionism is an unhelpful outlook. disease. For years, noble squad members have served this project as a palliative. The special ability of the ARS to deploy its un-removable template to mainspace is helpful as it helps give voice to the otherwise silent interests of countless millions of interested readers and thousands of newbies affected by deletion. Not too bothered if the templates destroyed though. Deletionists have grown too powerful and squad members have became too few to protect even our best members from deletionist hoards and their despicable passive aggressive attacks. We have even less chance of adequately protecting articles and the interests of newbies, which is essential if the project is to live up to its vision to collect all the worlds knowledge, not just the stuff liked by eliteists and attract in the new workers needed to capture the worlds ever expanding knowledge. It may even help for deletionists to win this battle. The result could be the squad getting out of the way of the only force powerful enough to effect a cure. The Foundation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that comment for real? If so, it perfectly demonstrates the point that members of the ARS have adopted a battleground mentality and treat Wikipedia as an ideological war with 'deletionist hoards', rather than focusing on the merits of individual articles under discussion. 'Deletionism is a disease' is the kind of incivil, anti-good-faith attitude that makes AFD (and Wikipedia by extension) such an unpleasant place. This template is a major contributor to that attitude. (As an aside, it's clear to me that 'deletionist' has lost any useful meaning it might have once had as a neutral descriptor, and now serves purely as a pejorative to attack people whose views the speaker disagrees with.) Robofish (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing anti-good-faith about it. I've no problem assuming deletionists honestly think they're being helpful. It seems to be part of the pathology of deletionism that it causes one to think that destroying other folks hard work is beneficial. You could be right that calling the outlook a disease is uncivil though, so have struck that.FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've helped rescue a few articles that I found at AfD. I did it by searching for usable sources and using them to improve the article. I didn't do it by canvassing other users. Listing articles at AfD on project pages works fine; it does help increase participation in the discussion, and my impression is that such project notices do not generally produce any particular inclusionist/deletionist bias. A template on the article page that does produce a very strong inclusionist bias to the discussion is a real problem. AfD discussions should be about the merits of the article, not about inclusionism or deletionism. -- Donald Albury 13:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is one of the most un-collaborative nominations I've ever seen on WP. In the name of WP:CANVASS which is one of the most ill-concieved and abused guidelines imaginable in a collaborative environment, we now want to ban a template that lasts only for the duration of an AfD and is designed to improve the probability that content is improved. Banning the template only increases the probability that worthy content is not improved and is deleted. Banning this template is blatantly un-collaborative. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Discounting the meta discussion of "What is is?" I've been party to a handful of AfDs that had the consensus turned 180 degrees once the rescue tag was applied. This also involves discussions about ArS's role in "saving" articles. If an article is claimed by a WikiProject the notification to the project's "Articles for Discussion" list should be all that's needed to help determine if the article is appropriate for inclusion. If an article gets kept on a flimsy reasoning because of the rescue template, we can determine that the template is a canvassing tool for a specific viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The rescue template tags articles for attention by anyone who wants to participate in an AfD discussion, including WP:ARS members and deletionist editors. Attention is a good thing, participation is what Wikipedia is about, and removing this tag heads in the other direction. As for canvassing, that sometimes happens outside of Wikipedia with emails, or by newbies who ask for help that is taken as canvassing, but administrators know what happens, and generally deal with that along with everything else that makes their jobs tricky but rewarding. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna know what draws editor's attention (both inclusionist and deletionist) to an AFD? The AFD template. What else you got?--v/r - TP 14:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The shear volume of AfDs mean that I do not have my attention called to particular deletion nominations. Fellow ARS members tag an article and being on the list call it to my attention, but I feel free to say Delete or Merge rather than Keep on any any rescue tagged article. The TfD immediately following this one is a rare instance were I found a nomination and easily decided to tag it Delete but most of my activity on AfDs is with ARS tagged articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Donald Albury, Tarc, and especially Spartaz. I have encountered exactly the behavior he mentions in his recommendation. Horologium (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete Not rationale can be presented for keeping. There are two keep arguments, 1) That it brings editors attention to an AFD. However, so does an AFD tag. 2) That it notifies the ARS project just like any other project. However, no other project has a biased "keep" from the get-go. See "audience" under WP:CANVASS. This template's purpose is to turn the tide of an AFD by creating a centralized location for inclusionist editors to scream "OH MY GOD, WE'LL LOOK KILOBYTES OF PRECIOUS DATA"!--v/r - TP 14:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I really made really good experience with that template! Doesn't matter if I tagged the article or any other contributor - every time the AFD was provided with really useful references and thus the articles could be kept. Without that template this wasn't even possible and because I'm mostly active in technical areas there aren't that many watchers. mabdul 14:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't delete a template simply because it is used improperly - we deal with the behavior that results in its misuse. The objection that this template goes in the mainspace is a non-starter; the AFD template goes there too. But say we move this template to a project tag on the debate page, as with almost every other wikiproject - what then? You're still going to have a wikiproject checking this debate because it's on a list, and you're also going to stop the random editor who stumbles onto the article and might have helped with the rescue. That was, I thought, one of the main ideas for this template - not that it drags the Squadron into action, but that random editors might notice it too and pitch in. Unless they're following AFD, that wouldn't happen. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We already went through this at least twice already. People who get upset when they fail to delete articles they consider crap/junk/fancruft, are the ones that pick on the ARS constantly, and want to destroy it. Most, but possibly not all, of those that will rush to say delete here, are those people. This should NOT have been nominated by someone who doesn't really want it deleted. Pointless waste of time. Most articles that have been tagged for rescue have had reliable sources found to prove they were notable, and have thus been saved. If you look at the total record of the Article Rescue Squadron, and don't just cherry pick a few examples, you'll find that to be the case. Dream Focus 14:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No real rationales for deletion given other than "it does not do anything" and "it does too much" <g>. The arguments could equally apply to a lot of other templates which are far more deserving of deletion, and this TfD is quite clearly linked to other discussions which have not, so far, found the problem to be the template. As for "vote stacking" I would note that ArbCom dicta clearly allow a closing admin to weigh arguments in discussions rather than count heads - so that sort of argument is pretty much a non-starter. (In fact, I think any closing admin here should, indeed, weigh the arguments given.) Lacking any actual grounds for deletion - the clear default if Keep. Collect (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oughtn't the multiple TfDs for this in the past be clearly linked at the top? Collect (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added them, mimicing the old AFD template. These have been placed at the top of the debate; if TfD does things differently, please move them as appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with an ((expert)) template in line with the other WikiProject tags; Some editors' hobby/expertise is finding sources for random obscure stuff, and some of them visit ARS. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: Life preserver template is used more as a clarion call for keepist editors to vote at AfDs than to actually improve articles. Even some of the articles that are actually "rescued" are often of inferior quality, with slapdash references that don't always attest to notability Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if the template is being misused, that's a case for editor education, not template deletion. Tagging for sources means an article doesn't have any -- tagging for rescue means "there have to be sources here I can't find, will someone else please do it really quickly". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - IMO, the "it is just being used for canvassing purposes" is just one aspect of the calls to delete the template, and those focusing on refuting that argument alone are veering into strawman territory. Other than Warden's ill-chosen analogy above to unreferenced tagging, I have yet to see someone address the "why does one wiki-project get to put its tage in article space?" and none address the "why does the reader of an article need to know the ARS has flagged it?" position. The AfD tag itself will already draw the reader in to the discussion. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we have article-space expert tags that direct to a WikiProject? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The good Colonel and ASCIIn2Bme have already given 3 examples showing the Squad is not the only project that gets to add tags to the main space. From the reader perspective you mention, it signals that some are dedicated to preservation. At least then they know established editors arent all trying to destroy the articles they've came to read. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In my experience the use of this template does help substantively improve articles at risk of deletion. The instructions it contains are particularly helpful to newbies who would otherwise simply be upset that someone is challenging their work. I note that the delete !votes don't include any actual examples of misuse. Who cares if it's a canvassing tool for inclusionists? If they can figure out how to improve bad articles because of this template, then it's helping to build an encyclopedia and more power to them. Selery (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The majority of the time, the application of this template seems to result in ARS members piling into the AfD in question to !vote "keep". Only in the minority of the time that I've observed has it resulted in any of the ARS !voters actually improving the article. The template is intended, and used, to canvass a group known to be strongly inclusionist to tagged AfDs, and rarely results in actual improvement of the articles in question. A template whose only functional purpose is to canvass is a template that should be deleted.

  In addition, the argument of "You can't remove the template!" "Why?" "Because we say you can't remove the template!" is...vacuous. I could create Wikiproject Sparklecorn, which adds glittery overlays and ponies to articles I think need to be prettier. I could write into the guidelines of Wikiproject Sparklecorn that no one may remove my bedazzling. That doesn't mean that my prohibition has any actual strength, and no one would be expected to go "...sigh. She's bedazzled Death. And yet I'm not permitted to remove the glitter!" If people from Wikiproject Sparklecorn continued to assert that my glitter was valid in all cases and unremovable, the most efficient solution to that on the community's part would be to delete our glitter templates, which served no valid purpose, not to sprint around trying to topic-ban each person who loves glitter. Similarly, this TfD is the better route than attempting to decide whether individual ARS editors knew the effect of their use of the template was to canvass. The template canvasses and is being used in a way that places the desires of ARS over the guidelines of the community; the template is therefore a problem and the least dramatic fix to that problem is to delete it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The fact that this template is now discussed for deletion for the fourth time is in itself an indication that there are ongoing problems with it. I do not see any of the Keep voters explain why they cannot do the very same work (rescuing articles) without this template. In fact everybody who participates in AfD discussion is already looking for reliable sources to establish notability, isn't it? So, the AfD tag is a rescue tag already, why do we need another one? The existing AfD template could easily be edited to include clearer rescue instructions if that is deemed necessary. Why is that not good enough for the members of ARS? MakeSense64 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A different perspective is that the existence of multiple XfDs for the same target is yet another manifestation of systemic bias in favour of deletion. Deletionists often dont respect prior decisions, and keep renominating in the hopes not enough reasonable folk show up to save their prey from destruction. It only takes 5 seconds to put an article up for deletion using tools, or to type "delete fails GNG". It often takes hours or even days to find sufficient sources to save an article. Thats another benefit of the template, it helps those who like to save articles work as a team and focus their efforts. Some like to find sources, others arent so good as searching but are good at integrating existing sources into the articles. And yes still others like to ensure the hard resuce work doesn't go to waste by making sure there are enough keep votes to save the article from destruction. A project space list wouldnt be as effective at energising teamwork - we know this from experience. The reason for the 2nd TfD was to remove the damaging restriction that temporarily prevented the template going in mainspace, which is right where it belongs. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wording it very nicely there: "...by making sure there are enough keep votes to save the article from destruction..". That's exactly the problem that we are talking about here. This "making sure that there are enough keep votes" is the questionable behavior that results from this rescue tag. You nailed it. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm of two minds about how to !vote on this. I support the stated goal of the Article Rescue Squadron, and I think most of us do: improving pages marked for deletion is obviously a good thing. Now, does the template itself help accomplish that? A lot of the time, the answer is no. But then again, all our "This article needs cleanup" tags fail to effect significant changes to an article most of the time, as well. So I don't know that it's a good reason to delete this tag. Is the tag causing problems that deletion of the template would solve? I doubt it, the ARS would likely still maintain a list of pages needing "rescue" and their members would likely still edit in the same fashion (some helpful, some not so helpful). So I guess in the end I'll have to go with a Weak Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This template - ((Article Rescue Squadron invite)) - would do infinitely more to improve the ARS' success, reduce the siege/battlefield mentality ("deletionist hordes" etc.) as well as actually improve WP by drawing more attention to retaining good content, which is supposed to be the point. This shouldn't be about 'inclusion/deletion' politics, it should be about the collaboration people keep talking about, and about keeping material that shouldn't be getting deleted, something which most Wikipedians have no issue with and would actively support. Improving links to sources, reaching out to experienced Wikipedians to join the squadron and building bridges rather than barricades against the deletionist bogeyman would improve things across the board. This should all be a positive thing, editors working to improve their own article saving efforts while working with those who regularly nominate articles for deletion to make sure they're upping their own game. It's down to the ARS to improve their membership and effectiveness, and stop clutching this tag as though it's some kind of enchanted totem which magically gets articles fixed. Wikipedians who want to fix things can do so, and do, without beacons pointing to a handful of articles. That's what deletion sorting is there for. Someoneanother 21:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikiproject tags do not belong in mainspace. The canvassing problems regarding ARS and this tag remain highly problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not a member of the project but think that it does some of the best work on Wikipedia! This template is central their workflow. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wouldn't be as opposed to it if it was used on the afd instead of the article and if it wasn't used almost exclusively to canvass. This shouldn't exist and it especially shouldn't be used in article space. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing wrong with the ARS, there is a lot wrong with a template that suggests a handful of articles are more deserving of scrutiny than the others which have been nominated for deletion, and that dropping it onto an article somehow elevates its importance above the others. There is potential for abuse, not only in terms of vote-stacking but also in terms of COI editors calling 'their' article to attention. The ARS would not be harmed by its removal, recruiting editors with specialist knowledge or an interest in different topics and helping them to patrol the different deletion areas efficiently would yield better results than the use of this tag ever could. The tag doesn't rescue articles, editors rescue articles, whether they're ARS members or not. Someoneanother 17:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – People have varying views about how the rescue template should be used. I simply use it in accordance with its instructions for use located at WP:RESCUETAG. A significant part of use of the template is to involve other Article rescue squadron WikiProject (ARS) members to share in the work of improving articles with topics that are perceived to actually be notable per WP:GNG by the tag-placer. People have continuously extrapolated their own views regarding these instructions in various manners, adding on additional instruction paramaters that are not a part of the template's actual instruction set.

• Some state that use of the template amounts to canvassing other ARS members to vote in Article for deletion discussions. This is a flawed argument, because the use of many tags could be portrayed in this manner. For example, adding a refimprove tag to an article could be misstated as “canvassing” users to add more references to articles. Adding a Wikiproject template to an article talk page could be misstated as “canvassing” a Wikiproject to participate in an article. Adding a template to an article does not amount to canvassing or vote stacking. Wikipedia templates are neutrally-worded. See WP:CANVASS for the actual guidelines regarding canvassing.

When a template is placed on an article, it is very unreasonable, overly-assumptive and unfair to state that the tag-placer is somehow psychically knowledgeable in advance about what any other Wikipedia users may hypothetically type on their computers. It's also unreasonable to state that those who respond to rescue tags are obligated to respond in whatever various specific manners. A user who places a tag on an article has no control over the actions of other users on Wikipedia.

• Another matter is instruction extrapolations and instruction creep regarding use of the template, which are not included in the template's actual use instructions.

• Some have stated that a rescue template should be removed once sources have been added to an article. This goes against the current instructions for use of the tag, in which removal of the tag is forbidden once it has been placed.

• Some say that adding a rescue template to an article without making a certain number of improvements to an article is misuse of the template, or disqualifies use of the template. There are no parameters in the instructions that specifically state how many improvements should be made to an article to qualify the use of a rescue tag.

• Some have extrapolated arguments that edits either have to be performed prior to adding a rescue template, or conversely, that a rescue template cannot be used once editing improvements have been made to an article being considered for deletion.

• Some have extrapolated that once a rescue template has been placed, the placer is somehow obligated to continue to make improvements to the article.

• Some have synthseized canvass arguments based upon some of the various extrapolations above, stating that use of the tag amounts to canvassing, unless various extrapolated rules (that are not part of the actual instructions) are adhered to.
  

None of these extrapolations are included in the template's actual instruction set. These types of instruction creep don't serve to change the actual instructions for the template.

If the template is kept after this discussion ends, users who continue to extrapolate instruction uses for the template not based upon the actual instructions should focus on obtaining consensus to change the instruction set.

For reference purposes, below is a discussion regarding the rescue template that was on my user talk page in December 2011.

Question on use of rescue tag – from December 2011 (This discussion is CLOSED, please do not edit or modify it).

Question on use of rescue tag At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashless.org, you argued that the article already has ample sourcing to pass the GNG and should be kept. In that case, why did you add the rescue tag?--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] That wasn't the wording in my comment. The verbatim comment was: "Citations are not solely press releases and startup blogs whatsoever. Here are some reliable sources:" (with three sources listed). Northamerica1000(talk) 06:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] See WP:RESCUETAG. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] You're avoiding the question. Which of these applies to this scenario? Need references Are written poorly Lack information readily available Need cleaning up. --Yaksar (let's chat) 06:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] From AfD: "Citations are not solely press releases and startup blogs whatsoever. Here are some reliable sources:" Northamerica1000(talk) 06:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] The article would benefit from more sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Certainly. Any article would. But it doesn't need more sources to prove it's not a deletion candidate, as you've made clear, and so that should be left for normal improvement tagging. The rescue tag is only for when the article still needs to be proven to be a worthy candidate, not for articles that have already been proven to pass the test.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] The article is still in AfD, and has not been proven to pass GNG at this time. Under this rationale, adding references to articles should then also remove them entirely from AfD while they are still in AfD, per one person's opinion. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:RESCUETAG: "...As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen."...Northamerica1000(talk) 06:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] The article Kashless.org is a notable topic, and likely shouldn't have been nominated for deletion in the first place. Peace. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC):::::::That doesn't mean it's a rescue candidate! The tag is for when work is needed, on either finding sources or fixing the article, to prove it is not a deletion candidate. If you feel it already meets the requirements to avoid deletion, and are tagging it because voters should know this and should !vote keep, that's a misuse of the tag!--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Consider improving the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'm working on the article right now. Consider improving the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please stop being condescending and actually answer the question.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Look, I don't know how to say this any more clearly. If an article already has sourcing to show that it is notable enough to not be deleted, you do not tag it for rescue. Rescue is not simply for articles where you know it shouldn't be deleted and therefore need to bring in editors to !vote keep. That is canvassing, and is not acceptable here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] In addition, if an article does not need more references to be proven as notable, but could simply benefit from the addition of more sources or a cleanup, normal editing tags should be used.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I added the sources to the article, however, the article is still being considered for deletion. If you think the topic is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, then vote at the AfD to keep it, since this appears to be your stance. Appropriate use of tags is not canvassing, it's adding a template to an article. Other editors may not agree with the notability of the topic. Also, use of the rescue tag is not canvassing for !votes of any sort whatsoever Northamerica1000(talk) 06:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Look, I'll try to be clearer. Article is likely notable, but current known sourcing does not make that clear---->rescue tag, so that others can help find sources to show notability (or, possibly, fail to do so, confirming the opposite. Article is notable and sources that let it pass the GNG or address the nominator's issue are already addressed. However, the article could still be improved (as most articles can!)---->regular editing tags. A rescue tag here, asking not for edits to save the article but simply for !votes to keep it, would be incorrect. Is that at all clear?--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] My view of the rescue tag is similar to yours. If an article is notable and sources have already been advanced to prove this, a rescue tag would be considered canvassing. More on that here and here. If an article is in poor condition and has dubious sourcing but potential, then a rescue tag would be appropriate. It seems as if Northamerica1000 is tagging every article at which s/he votes keep. This is patently disruptive and constitutes blatant canvassing. Goodvac (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Then someone else comes along immediately and agrees, changing the topic in the process to a general critique of overall edits. Adding rescue tags functionally and correctly is not disruptive whatsoever. Feel free to tally my edits any way you like, but please don't misstate that working to save notable topics is disruptive. Thank you. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please stop. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Rescue tag Here's the verbatim text from the actual tag: "This article has been tagged for rescue. Please review the deletion discussion and help improve the article to make clear whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion and notability criteria. You may edit this article to add reliable sources, and address other concerns raised in the discussion. Find sources: Google, News, Books, Scholar. Please leave this tag in place until the discussion has closed." It's absolutely reasonable to add references to articles that one tags for rescue, and conversely it's absolutely reasonable to include references that establish topic notability in AfD discussions. Your statement above about adding a rescue tag asking for some type of !votes is assumptive, and false. Also note the text in the tag, "You may edit this article to add reliable sources, and address other concerns raised in the discussion." Again, in all kindness, please consider improving the article and/or discussing it's notability at its AfD. Thank you. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Are you seriously ignoring everything I say? No one is saying that the tag's request to add sources is bad, or that the rescue tag is bad itself when properly used. But if the sources are being added to improve the article and not to save it from dubious notability, then the rescue tag is completely improper and there are normal editing tags that should be used. Normal editing tags can and should be used even when an article is up for AfD, the rescue tag is not simply a replacement for them.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please stop. Again, in all kindness, please consider improving the article and/or discussing it's notability at its AfD. Thank you. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Ignoring or dismissing the discussion does not make it go away. But at this point it's clear that you're unwilling to change your stance on this, so further discussion may not be productive. This may have to be taken to some other more productive forum for more insight.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I agree. We're unlikely to change Northamerica1000's mind, regardless of the rational explanations. It's been clear in the past that s/he has "I didn't hear it" issues. Goodvac (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please stop. I disagree with your opinionated assessment above, and a comparison to some other matter entirely unrelated to rescue tags. Please stop. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] The comparison is wholly relevant to this discussion, specifically your unwillingness to accept or even consider other views regarding the rescue tag. But per your request, I will stop responding here. Happy rescue tagging. Goodvac (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please stop. The example is entirely out of context, again, the example is about an entirely different topic. Please stop. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I agree that this probably is going off topic. Goodvac, I do appreciate your input on the rescue tagging and hope you'll stay involved as the discussion inevitably goes further (if elsewhere) but I really would prefer if we can stay on topic here or else the issue will never get addressed. If you're issue is with Northamerica1000's behavior in general I'd suggest starting a new section of the talk page (although now probably isn't a good time) or an RFC/U.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please stop. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Closing statement: The wording of this query was inaccurate, misstating what I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashless.org. The Kashless.org article is still in AfD, and has not been proven to pass GNG at this time. The person messaging me seems to assume that the addition of references to the Kashless.org article will confer to a keep result in its AfD discussion, thus disallowing the use of a rescue tag for the article. Or, it could be an argument that since references were added to the article, the rescue tag cannot be used. However, the article remains in AfD, being considered for deletion. It is appropriate to add references to articles that are tagged for rescue, and also to cite references in AfD discussions. Furthermore, adding rescue tags to articles is not canvassing for !votes of any kind whatsoever, as repeatedly assumed by the person continuously messaging me. Again, it is allowed and functional to add references to articles that are in AfD and to cite reliable sources in AfD discussions. Adding references of any sort does not disqualify use of the rescue template whatsoever. This discussion is closed.

Signed: Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Here's an example of how I used the rescue template in the Kashless.org article, the revision history for the page. Notice how I first found reliable sources and added them to the article, and then based upon the existence of reliable sources, decided that the topic was notable per WP:GNG guidelines, at that point adding the rescue tag. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You improved the article so it met guidelines. What was the point of the rescue template after that? Can you explain what else needed to be done?--v/r - TP 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged in hopes of ARS members working to further improve the article, particularly by adding more reliable sources. A significant part of the template's use is to notify other ARS members about articles that are perceived as notable, but being considered for deletion. If I didn't think the topic was notable, then I wouldn't have placed the template. Your arguments present an unsolvable paradox: if a person isn't able to find sources, and adds a template, you have stated in the past that you perceive this as is "drive-by" tagging. If a person finds sources, adds them to an article, but isn't certain about whether or not they are sufficient (whether or not the sources constitute enough significant coverage, the reliability of the sources, the number of sources, etc.) to prove topic notability and adds a rescue tag, you've indicated an opinion that the tag shouldn't be used. See subpoint #3 of the second section of my comment above for more information. Perhaps you could explain your stance about how and when the tag should be used, which would clarify your opinion. You seem against its use in any fashion, partly evidenced by your !vote here to delete the template. Ultimately, the ARS and its use of the template serve to continuously improve Wikipedia. Do you think that topics that are actually notable per guidelines should be removed from Wikipedia? You've stated an opinion in this discussion: "...I think the overabundance of crap topics that get saved by ARS hurts the encyclopedia's credibility." You are entitled to your opinion, but topic notability is based upon guidelines for this very reason, to avoid the interjection of subjectivity regarding topics that should or shouldn't be in Wikipedia. What if these "crap topics" you mention are actually notable per guidelines? Should there be a dictatorship denying readers this content, based upon their subjective opinions? No. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Objectivity (journalism). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Kept 3 times already, these repeated nominations are disruptive. This looks like the next step after our best members were bullied off Wikipedia. The rescue tag is critical to the Article Rescue Squadron's operation. It's completely public - those who like to delete articles can and do follow it. CallawayRox (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's right to say it's disruptive to re-nom. The last time it was TfDed was almost three years ago, which is an eternity around here. The reasons are also slightly different than in previous nominations Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is disruptive, but not because it's the fourth time it's been to TfD in as many years. It's disruptive because the editor who nominated it for deletion is lobbying for it to be kept. —SW— ^verbalize 23:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the nomination being described as "disruptive"; it was done to promote consensus. I haven't particularly advocated for automatically keeping the template. I provided information above about various arguments I have seen against it. As this is a "templates for discussion" forum, this seemed like the most logical place to obtain community consensus. The only options to bring something here are to nominate as "delete" or "merge". There are some arguments in this discussion to merge aspects of the template into the AfD tag. Perhaps including aspects of the ((Find sources)) template within the AfD template would be an improvement. The rescue template has this parameter, but the AfD tag does not. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the most reasonable solution. Nobody is arguing that there should be no such thing as a rescue project team (the name squadron sounds rather aggressive to me). The problem is with the way it is currently functioning. One of the ARS members described part of the working of the group as follows: ""...by making sure there are enough keep votes to save the article from destruction.." ..., well that is the definition of votestacking. It is then no longer about improving the article, but about making sure there are enough keep votes.

One line of thinking is that the "Rescue" tag is needed as a counterweight to the AfD tag, which is too deletionist in tone according to some. Well, if that is the case then the obvious solution is to add some rescue instructions in the AfD tag. For example : "You can help rescue this article by finding reliable sources that prove notability" , followed by the standard ((Find sources)) template. I think that would satisfy editors on either side of the debate, and would in no way stop the ARS from achieving their project goals. In fact it would help with the project goals because then every AfD has rescue guidelines on it automatically. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding a ((Find sources)) parameter to the AfD tag makes absolute sense, as the tone of the AfD template be would have a more neutral point-of-view, and provide Wikipedia editors and readers with search resources directly on the AfD template. This would balance out the template, and ultimately make Wikipedia more user-friendly. Some people may think that a topic is not notable due to the bright red colorization on the AfD template, which states "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." (Et al.), and then assume that the article is inferior, due to the appearance of the template, when in reality, many articles nominated for deletion are actually notable per WP:N guidelines. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this idea to the talk page for the Article for deletion page Here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nomination was procedural, not disruptive. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive a stake through its heart, hang the corpse, then draw and quarter The AFD tag already serves any useful purpose of this one. At best it's totally unnecessary; there are convincing arguments that it's a tool for non-neutral canvassing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually this one differentiates one AfD tag from another, rather than duplicates that flag. I've raised the banner for ARS a half dozen times or so over the last couple years, something like that. I use it to denote articles for which I am convinced there are sources extant to defend the piece, but for whatever reason do not have time, interest, or expertise to gather them myself to integrate into the article. The fact that it targets volunteers to work on specific pieces where there is probably reliable source material to be mined is what makes it effective. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break[edit]

• Keep - This is perhaps one of the most effective improvement tags of any in the toolbox... It drives people to action to save endangered work, changing insufficient articles into pieces that meet encyclopedic muster. I recognize that this is no doubt frustrating to those nominating material for deletion, but the bottom line is that this template improves the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The template has clearly served the goal of improving the encyclopedia over the years, which should be the highest priority and trump other concerns. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt your assertion "improving the encyclopedia". I think the overabundance of crap topics that get saved by ARS hurts the encyclopedia's credibility.--v/r - TP 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "crap topics" are you talking about, and if they were saved by improvement that caused them to meet the thresholds for inclusion, how was the project's credibility harmed? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately at least from what I have seen very very few articles are saved by improvement. Most are only saved by vote stacking with little to nothing done to the articles the tag was thrown on. -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately people keep wasting time nominating perfect notable articles instead of following WP:BEFORE and seeing if they get coverage anywhere. Articles are kept when someone takes the time to look, shows there is significant coverage in reliable sources, and others looking at this agree. AFD is not cleanup. If you want something fixed in an article, do it yourself, don't whine because others won't do it for you. Dream Focus 18:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Calling something a "crap topic" sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than a policy-based argument. If vote-stacking is keeping unworthy topics from being properly deleted, that is a failure of the closing admin. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, so then the ARS needs to start looking for reliable in depth sources and not just coverage which I often see misapplied by ARS members, particularly Dream Focus I have seen throwing a large number of trivial passing mentions on articles. Indeed if you want something fixed then do it yourself. Don't slap a rescue tag on it hoping others will fix it for you or that others will come and votestack for you. Whether or not it is a failing of the admin or not, its a practice that needs to be stopped. The best way to do it is to remove the tool being used to canvass. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This template has for years been used as an effective canvassing tool, and that needs to stop. Frankly, we don't need a this, as other mechanisms are in place to alert interested parties that AfDs are open. Editors should look for sources just about any article at AfD that is tagged for rescue in spite of the template. In the case of controversial and fan-crufty articles that are put up for deletion, the template really only serves to alert editors with extremely low standards of notability to come and flood the AfD with keep votes. It's unnecessary and unproductive. Delete it already. AniMate 19:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a legitimate template used to attract editors to improve the article. While it can be used with the intent of canvassing, it is extremely effective in getting articles corrected. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I've seen this many times before and it's always struck me as pre-judging the outcome of the AfD: one editor deciding the article should be kept, usually while the discussion is still in the balance (as obvious keeps and obvious deletes are rarely tagged). If an editor sees how the article can be improved they should try and improve it, or if they can't (no time, can't access to particular sources, topic is too technical) post in the AfD discussion at the same time as tagging the article with a more appropriate and neutral cleanup template.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The argument that this doesn't belong in mainspace is valid, but doesn't necessitate deletion. Just change the instructions to transclude this template on the afd discussion, not the article itself. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep per Jclemens — invalid nomination. It's disruptive to nominate something for deletion when you don't think it should be deleted. Just because some editors opined at ANI that they thought the template should be deleted doesn't mean it's appropriate to start a TfD on their behalf. It's actually kinda rude, IMHO. And yes, I'm aware that this is "Templates for discussion", not "Templates for deletion", but the semantic value of that distinction is insignificant to me. If you want to discuss this template, then Template talk:Rescue is the place that was created for that purpose. We all know that the primary purpose of TfD is to discuss whether a template should be deleted. —SW— ^babble 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a procedural nomination. If someone clearly states that a template should be deleted, but doesn't nominate it, it is perfectly acceptable for someone else to do it on their behalf. Also, procedural or speedy keep do not apply if people have voted delete in good faith. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, fair enough. Then I change my !vote to delete - per Spartaz's explanation above. —SW— ^express 00:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Reyk, TechnoSymbiosis, and Dark. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We are an encyclopdia, not a game of brinkmanship. Improvable articles should be improved. Period. Getting as much asistance as possible in improving weak but improvable content is the laudable goal encouraged by both policy and guideline. Period. If it is felt ANY tag is being used improperly, we deal with the editor, not the tag... nor do we impune 400 members of an entire project on the perceived actions of one or two. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a misuse of article space. Spartaz and fluffernutter explain the issues clearly. Kanguole 00:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this tag was placed during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clerk of Tynwald. I was the nominator, I voted deletion, and I was the only person who put in any effort on improving the article (and I never changed my vote). What's the point of the rescue tag if the people who want to keep the page won't put it any effort to fix it? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any misuse of the tag, or obvious canvassing in that AFD, it was a near-unanimous keep AFD, and most of the editors who discussed there clearly aren't ARS members, except for the very end of that debate. Secret ^account 04:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If an article can be improved, improve it. If an article can't be improved, !vote delete. If an article needn't be improved, !vote keep. In any case, don't use article space to canvass or comment on the quality of the deletion nomination. As other editors have pointed out, there would be outcry if a deletionist WikiProject got to place its own template (maybe with a cartoony little mushroom cloud instead of a life preserver?) and impose preconditions for its removal. If there's insufficient consensus to delete this template, rework for placement on the article's talk page with the rest of the WikiProject banners. Lagrange613 00:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Arguing that this is somehow canvassing is not just a failure to assume good faith, it is, in fact an assumption of bad faith. Why is it somehow wrong to say "these articles need work or they might be deleted - here's a list of those we think can be salvaged, get to work"? If this was a system that posted talk page notices "hey, come rescue this", that would be canvassing. This is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However it is used to maintain Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Article list which is de facto the same as posting on a talk page. Mtking ^(edits) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's any different from the logs at WikiProject Deletion Sorting how, then? Better delete them as canvassing pages too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For two reasons already stated above. 1) No wikiproject should be allowed to place to place tags in mainspace, no matter for how limited a time. In principle this could be handled by moving it to the talkpage or something, but: 2) The template is clearly used for canvassing. No matter how many times people deny it, it clearly happens and examples are legion. I have myself have seen several times how the template was added, only to have several keep voters show up within hours, without any improvements being made to the article at all. 3-4 additional Keep voters is enough to derail an average AFD, no matter how flimsy their !votes. I have no illusions that we can stop this behavior by deletion this template, but it would be a step in the right direction. Yoenit (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This template wastes a tremendous amount of editor time that could be better spent improving an encyclopedia. Self-described inclusionists can look at AFDs and then, when possible, fix the articles so they're worth keeping. This template does nothing except provoke arguments and me-too !votes. We're better off without it. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per many above. Not only is the template is redundant to the AFD notice itself, but its very nature implies that editors who see it should go place a !keep vote at the AfD. It becomes a partisan tool for a single wikiproject that does not belong in mainspace. Resolute 02:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the template provides nothing that the AFD and cleanup templates can't do, while it fosters a battleground mentality. --Carnildo (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At best this duplicates other available templates that are more neutrally phrased (the AfD itself, and the existing "improvement" tags). At worst it's a canvassing weapon that can encourage fluff editing such as adding undue news reports, with a tendency for an automatic do whatever it takes to get a keep response, instead of encouraging editorial judgment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've read almost every post at ANI and here. As others, I support the stated goals of the ARS. I'm not sure they always meet those goals, but that is irrelevant to the template itself. I do not believe this template is necessary for the ARS to function effectively; I think it could be refactored or the ARS workflow restructured in a way more conducive to meeting their goals, and without the risk of canvassing many of us have repeatedly seen. Keeping shoddy non-notable articles does damage the encylopedia; without proper sourcing, an article can easily make wild or inaccurate claims, and if not notable, the article may be impossible to improve. Canvassing users to post keep votes, and posting a template to the page urging users to do their part and save the article does sway consensus. These are problems with the ARS itself, but they are exacerbated by this template, which AFAICT serves no unique purpose, is unnecessary for the project, and comes with inherent problems. Absolutely delete.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sarek. And a massive trout to the nom. That was perhaps the definition of WP:POINT. Hobit (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Spartaz' extremely well reasoned comment. At the very least remove from mainspace. Begoon ^talk 12:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This template serves no purpose than to draw a deletion discussion to the attention of a group of editors sure to !vote keep. It's nothing but a canvassing tool, and since projects generally aren't allowed to place article space templates, and any functionality this template could serve is already served by the article deletion notice, it should go. This is a case in point – a run-of-the-mill deletion discussion about a topic which is clearly unencyclopaedic, heading for deletion. Then a member of the article rescue squadron tags the article with this template, and the cavalry pile in and start needlessly complicating the matter, without address any of the underlying issues with the article itself. This template is nothing but a call-to-arms for a keep brigade. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Delete per Jess, Spartaz and fluffernutter and Johnuniq. It isn't necessary and in reality it is canvassing. It doesn't help the AfD process (I agree with the comments about closers looking at numbers perhaps more than policy based arguments). If ARS members are actually not improving articles they are allegedly trying to rescue, or adding sources that don't meet our criteria, I find that very sad and hope that it won't continue. It makes a mockery of the ARS if nothing else. And Hobit, it's pretty obvious that a number of people welcome this nomination. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: sigh. I haven't even read the discussion yet, but I have no clue why the fuck Na1000, an apparent inclusionist, thought this nomination would be a good idea. Just scanning the bolded votes, he drew out the deletionist horde. I've been improving articles for over two years now and when an article can legitimately be rescued and I work on it, I bat close to 100%. I have crushed so many bad nominations, sometimes with great uncivility (which at times deters hasty if even good faith nominations in the future from the same editor), but more horrid nominations are always lurking like a never ending game of whack-a-mole. (BTW, 90%+ of AfD nominations are legitimate in my view, don't get crazy my respected deletionist friends, I know who you are.) If someone wants to delete this template to prevent me and like-minded editors from learning about such articles and continuing to improve the encyclopedia, I shall be extremely butthurt. Canvassing to some extent is going to happen as a side effect, but it will happen whether this template exists or not, just as it did before this template was created in 2007. I'm oh so glad to see a bunch of asses wasting all their time in non main-space discussons like this, inclusionsists and deletionists the whole goddamn lot of you. end rant, happy saturday.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Partisan, used abusively, unfairly categorizes AfDs, at least sometimes used for canvassing, inherently problematic, hard to monitor.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious speedy keep. Aside from the electronic book burners, no serious editors actually want these useful, bipartisan, and fair template deleted. If anything, delete the crufty AfD template. Also, do you think Iran will push the US to war over the straits? If you're wondering what that has to do with anything, well, gee, I don't know, maybe it concerns something actually IMPORTANT?! It is farcical watching the deletionists get their panties in a bunch spending all this time trying to go after article writers rather than doing anything actually useful whether it be to improve this project or in the own lives or for the good of humanity. Yeah, lengthy threads and posts at ANI and here are really beniffiting mankind and improving articles... Lol!  :) And no matter how many emails deletionists from this discussion send me and everyone else they know from Wikipedia Review and elsewhere to join their coordinated off site pile up here (yes, I usually follow this site from Wikipedia review, hence my username, where prominent deletionists think me their buddy...), no I am not going to join you here to participate in stupidity. Afd itself is nothing but actually worthwhile editors build the project, you get your handful of no nothings who do little more than swarm over deletion discussions and ANI threads. Real revealing when you compare the keeps versus deletes here and look at their contributions. And yeah, I know my account's edits consist of only these sorts of things, but WTF?! --WR Reader (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — WR Reader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete It has the inevitable effect of being used to canvass deletion discussions in favor of keep, regardless of what the ARS voting here claim. This matter arose because of the discussion I started on AN/I on the group that uses this template. I think there is a more fundamental issue with a group that clearly favors getting inclusionists to go to artciles on AfD to "rescue" them, but this tag makes it that much easier. When I nominated an article on the basis of it violating WP:NOT this group showed up and did some minor refactoring or rewording then pointed to the sources that mention the subject, even though my objection was not about notability at all. I am not for deleting this because of any bias towards deletion (I generally favor keeping or merging articles), but because the very idea of a group that favors keeping articles being able to tag any article put up for deletion so as to "rescue" it flies in the face of policy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The logic here is flawed. If an article doesn't meet policy guidelines, has no hope of being properly sourced, then it will be deleted. The existence of this template will not affect that one iota and the argument it attracts editors who favour creating content seems specious given the mission of wikipedia is supposedly to create an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a rather idealistic view of the AfD process and in reality it doesn't work that way. The Article Rescue Squadron don't have perfect judgment and quite frequently claim their sources demonstrate notability when in fact they don't (because the sources offer only trivial coverage of the subject, aren't independent of the subject, aren't reliable, etc). In these cases if lots of ARS partipants have voted Keep at the AfD then it's rather hard for the closing admin to justify closing the debate as Delete unless lots of other editors have shown up and concluded that the sources don't demonstrate notability, which doesn't always happen. Hut 8.5 12:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am quite familiar with AfD and how it works thank you. An AfD can often be the impetus for improving an article and I find many of the comments about the folks at ARS seriously lacking in good faith. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete From my experience the tag has only ever been used for vote stacking purposes. The AFD process is already biased in favor of keeping bad articles as it is (no consensus always equals keep) and the sole purpose of this tag is to bring the attention of people who want to keep every article they can. This is WP:GAMING the system by people, as we can see in comments above, who equate wanting Wikipedia to have standards with book burning. There is no valid reason to allow them this additional bit of support for their WP:TAGTEAMing. DreamGuy (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we are all looking to save notable articles - no need for this misused template. Youreallycan 22:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - many times an AfD becomes an impetus to improve the article in question. I won't comment on the relative merits of that situation, but generally speaking, the improvement of the article comes from users doing research on the topic and finding sources. Conversely, the rescue template seems to lead to a chorus of keeps with little to no support for those positions, and no improvement of the article by those users. Therefore, it would seem to me that the while the rationale behind the template is generally "good", its use in practice is not; the result is, invariably, kept articles with no improvement, leading to later renomination for not meeting criteria. We shouldn't be creating bureaucracy, and that is what the template usage engenders. If an article should be kept, it does not need a template to prove that or draw people to do that. The Squad can do its job without the aid of the template, and if the Squad does not or cannot follow through, it should not create the problem that it so plainly does with the template. MSJapan (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've started a discussion to add the ((Find sources)) parameter to the AfD template Here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Boris put it interestingly, as have others. This is being inappropriately used in articles and is redundant to the AfD tag that is normal. It does seem that the whole intent is to draw keep-minded editors to deletion discussions, which is very wrong. Alarbus (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Burn with fire (delete) the ARS is canvasing at its best. I have rarely seen any real work on the articles that were tagged with this template. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If project members want to bring specific AfD's to the project's attention, they can list them on a project page, and note that on the AfD page, as, for example:
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.

  There's no need for mainspace "tagging", especially since the project has specified that the "tag" cannot be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike all the other tags people post on an article's page, this one isn't simply ignored, but actually serves a purpose. It says someone believes in it and things it can be helped, and provides an easy link on that page to a Google news, book, and scholar search. Dream Focus 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per Arthur Rubin Bulwersator (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I read the flood of delete !votes as a indication that the community finally has lost patience with the manner in which this tag is used. The prior TfD discussion always brought up the point that the usage guidelines for the tag needed to be tightened, but this does not appear to have been taken to heart. I also would note that when this template was developed, AfD discussions ran only five days, and it was common to redirect or merge articles during the discussion - none of which is the case now. Still, I am moderately inclined to keep the tag, because used properly it attracts the attention of interested editors of the need to make timely improvements to an article before the 7-day period runs. The factor that has not been widely discussed here is the fact that an article may be renominated for deletion, while there is no real functional counterpart on the article preservation side. Yes, an article can be recreated, but without the revision history the benefits of prior collaboration are lost. The fact that the tag is in mainspace during the pendency of the AfD is to me simply a reflection of the limited opportunity to improve the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; regardless of what the template (and – indeed – the ARS itself) is meant to do, the actual effect is unfailingly a canvass for blind keep votes under the pretext that the article might be improved. My own anecdotal observations are that ARS involvement does not significantly cause articles to be improved – just increases the chances that it will be kept without significant improvements. — Coren ^(talk) 23:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't the overwhelming majority of articles tagged for rescue end up with references found in reliable sources posted on the AFD page? Can you post to examples of these alleged "blind keep votes"? Dream Focus 23:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could post many examples of your ARS canvassing and intercepting the sources you throw in the AFDs in the wrong way. Your comments in AFD usually shows a complete disregard to many policies and guidelines, most importantly WP:BLP and WP:RS. Secret ^account 04:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This template has never been harmful and never can be harmful. That it never has been harmful can be proven by the repeated challenges to the supporters of this TfD to list those articles which have been kept in the last year only by canvassing at the ARS page, and to demonstrate that this is the reason. This challenge has never been met. (That does not mean articles they !voted against, or would have !voted against or think should not have been kept, but those where the alleged lobbying activities of the ARS have made the difference to the result.) I conclude there are no such articles. If there are a few, which I have not yet seen demonstrated, I ask what proportion is it to the total number of articles kept and deleted at AfD? We delete there about 70 articles a day out of an average 100 nominated. If one wrong one gets kept, is this an appreciable error? (actually, I think the error is 5% of the kept articles should not be kept, and 10% of the deleting ones should not have been deleted; a few years ago, I think it was twice that. Everyone will have a different figure, but how much of this is due to the ARS?
  That it never can be harmful is shown by the fact that , as with all such groups, membership is open to anyone. If they think it nominates mainly articles that need deletion, why have they not been going to the AfD and saying so? Lobbying as generally diffused as the ARS banner can never have an effect here, because the entire community can see it. Is the ARS alleged to run a secret list mobilizing supporters that only they can see? That would be improper, as is every secret list of this sort.
  Certainly there have always been a few people foolishly making non policy based !keep votes, or !keep votes without an explanation. There have also always been a few people foolishly making non policy based !delete votes, or !delete votes without an explanation. I think the second group is several times the former, but what does the ARS have to do with it? They can all do so anyway on both sides, and probably will.
  So what is the motive of this nomination? A desire that more articles be deleted rather than improved, or a attack to try to demoralize their opposition. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- you say membership is open to all, but that's not really true, is it? The ARS is effectively an inclusionists-only club and is very hostile to anyone who isn't. I remember when one editor used the rescue template to find a bunch AfD discussions and then didn't vote keep on the majority of them; that editor was immediately attacked, accused of bad faith and dragged to ANI, and the ARS went so far as to abuse rollback to remove his votes. This incident proves to me beyond any doubt that the ARS cannot tolerate any use of the rescue template other than securing keep votes. Reyk _YO! 02:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? When did this happen? Kindly provide a link. I don't recall this ever happening to anyone. Dream Focus 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here you go. Reyk _YO! 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • SnottyWong(now called Scottywong) was an editor who previously went to all articles tagged for Rescue and almost always found a reason to vote delete, insult various ARS members, and argue constantly his belief that ARS was inclusionist canvassing. He even had an infobox he made which said what he was doing. "This user attempts to counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron by regularly reviewing articles tagged for rescue, and voting to delete most of them." [1] An administrator decided to roll back what he saw as someone not sincerely participating in the AFD process, but just stalking the ARS and voting delete everywhere they tagged. That issue went to ANI without much notice apparently, few people discussing the matter at all, and it not involving most of the ARS regulars. Dream Focus 10:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not how I read that ANI at all. I see consensus, on the linked discussion, that A) the userbox was disruptive, B) the AFD !votes were perfectly valid and policy-based (i.e. reasonable), and C) the admin abused his tools. I don't understand how you can read it any other way, to be honest. --NYKevin @313, i.e. 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw another ARS admin giving the same defense at ANI. Yes, people will still make baseless keep votes on AfDs and there really is no stopping that, but this tag clearly serves to focus and coordinate the efforts of those editors on specific articles, as opposed to having them pour over the AfD logs to find a random article they think should be kept. Suggesting it does not facilitate the canvassing of inclusionists is being disingenuous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you are exactly wrong, it DOES harm the project it creates an unnecessarily adversarial feeling to AfD which is not conducive to a collaborative project. VERTott 10:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think deleting things without a valid reason, insulting the work of those that worked on the article they are trying to destroy, and making insults against the ARS because people that disagree with you show up at AFD where you vote delete, would not be conductive to a collaborative project. That's what normally happens. Dream Focus 11:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wise DGG hit it right on the nose. Voting to delete this template because it makes deletion inconvenient is down right shameful. CallawayRox (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with limitations. I agree with DGG the template has never been harmful to the project. Many articles has been rescued from otherwise certain deletion using the ARS. The issue with the template is that it's been so abused by a selective number of users that it gotten to the point that the community is expressing outrage on the ARS and the template. These few users usually throw about any source about the subject with a complete disregard of Wikipedia knowledge to show a personal agenda, and many of the editors and administrators who are relative novices to AFDs get fooled with their misleading comments. The solution is to ban the worst offenders from deletion discussions and from using the template.By banning or restricted the worst violators, the people who does try to rescue articles from deletion in good faith, and following proper Wikipedia guidelines can work in relative peace. Secret ^account 02:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete telling from this wikilawyering by some of the participants in this TFD, I think it's better off to delete it to avoid more trouble in the future. Secret ^account 17:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Secret, your initial keep is a farse. I have been around long enough to know exactly which way someone will !vote in a deletion discussion before they vote. This is like me saying "Delete. I agree with Fram the template has always harmful to the project." then turning around and saying "Keep telling from this wikilawyering by some of the participants in this TFD, I think this TfD should be closed." what a joke. No veteran editor would believe it if I did this, and no one should take at face value your sudden turn of heart. Okip 23:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There is absolutely no policy or guideline which says that it is unhelpful to bring articles that may be suitable for the encyclopedia to the attention of others. If we are allowed to prominently advertise a nominator's choice to AFD an article, we are equally allowed as a community to advertise the opinion that it should be rescued. Steven Walling • talk 04:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there actually is a relevant guideline (WP:CANVAS). The AfD template prominently advertises a nomination to everyone equally, whereas the ARS template advertises the presence of an AfD to a select few, nearly all of whom happen to vote "Keep" at AfD's with an overwhelming frequency. At the very least, this violates the "Audience" criterion of the WP:CANVAS guideline. —SW— ^soliloquize 01:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments above, there is a AN/I where you voted delete on the whole ARS list. Take your "select few" BS somewhere else. CallawayRox (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get uncivil. By the way, the incident you describe happened years ago, and I actually voted keep on a few of the AfD's in question. I think my comments above are perfectly clear, so I'm going to refrain from trying to clarify them. —SW— ^converse 05:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I like to think of myself as one of those good examples of how the ARS does work. Regarding the list of rescues I have on my user page, every single one of them was improved with references and other information at AfD, which led to them being kept. If there are individual issues of canvassing or alleged canvassing, then deal with them individually, but trying to get rid of the project's main use template is disruptive for those of us who properly embody the purpose of the ARS. Silverseren^C 05:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Many of the above keep votes strongly remind me of some of the WP:ESPERANZA keep !votes. Clearly this template is very important to a lot of people, but the good of the encyclopedia trumps other considerations, and I don't think the term "rescue" is very good for the project in this context. That this is borderline canvassing (if you disagree with that assertion, just look at the number of !votes which disagree with you. I think "borderline" is fair.) doesn't help anything either. This isn't a !vote since I've already made one. --NYKevin @350, i.e. 07:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Colonel Warden's replies to Hut 8.5, per Feydhuxtable's and WR Reader's battleground mentality, because of the canvassing effect the tag has, and because in reality no more articles are "rescued" since we have that tag (and the ARS), than before it existed. Yes, they sometimes result in keeping articles incorrectly nominated for deletion. The same happened, in a much less confrontational and divisional way, before the tag (and the ARS) existed. So it has no actual benefit over the situation where it didn't exist, and serves to divide the community and make people distrust their opinions and their reason for being at an AfD. Fram (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If squad members brought a battleground mentality to this project you guys would know about it. Pretty much by definition inclusionists are respectful of other people and their work, and we try to remain gentle and restrained even under extreme provocation. The root cause of any perceived conflict is deletionists who insist on trying to destroy interesting and useful work. The obsession some of the more extreme deletionists have with trying to stifle and even permaban our most constructive members doesn't help either. Please don't use pejorative terms to describe those who noblely try to defend encyclopaedic standards and a welcoming diverse environment for newbies! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do know about it. It's being highlighted in this very discussion. For example, Colonel Warden said "...self-selected cabal to overwhelm a broad mass of new editors by defeating them in detail. The ARS is a good corrective to this pattern..." ARS members see themselves as in some kind of war against deletionists and they require a headquarters to coordinate their counter offensive against the war mongering deletionists.--v/r - TP 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a bad analogy to say we need headquarters, but per the ARS graphics its for peaceful and constructive civilian vehicles like trucks and estate cars. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First off, I was canvased off-wiki to come here and have my say on the expectation of a Keep vote, however they got it wrong. I think that this template and the way the project behave does harm the project, it makes AfD very adversarial, seen as a battle between two groups the "Neptunist" and "Plutonist" if you like. It does canvas support, the ARS might not like to call it that but it is a form of "Vote-banking". VERTott 10:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you perceive this happening more than with other Wikiprojects? Sometimes its more obvious than others [2], but many Wikiprojects gather people like themselves, and then go around ganging up on articles they don't like, and eliminate them once they had numbers superior to anyone who might object, be it through merge/redirects without consensus, or by AFDs. We don't do that. Dream Focus 11:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "then go around ganging up on articles they don't like, and eliminate them once they had numbers superior to anyone who might object" - ^{[citation needed]} Bulwersator (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles about schools is a good current example. We have thousands of articles about schools written by a large number of editors. You then have a handful of fanatics who go from article to article trying to delete the ones that don't fit their preference. It seems quite common for a small, self-selected cabal to overwhelm a broad mass of new editors by defeating them in detail. The ARS is a good corrective to this pattern by providing technical expertise in matters such as sourcing and policy which assists the new and naive editor when their first faltering draft is pounced on Warden (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, main purpose of the template (admitted or not) is to make the article appear in a category monitored by users predisposed towards !voting "keep" at AFDs, irrespective of article merits. We have a whole raft of cleanup tags for articles needing improvement. Additionally, there is no consensus outside the project that the tag should not be removable. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it alright to remove the "whole raft of cleanup tags" which remain for years and are almost always just totally ignored? Those who don't like us, will remove our tag if allowed to. If the Rescue tag is allowed to exist, then it has to be allowed to be used, otherwise it'll just get removed constantly, and that the same as just deleting it. I think the real problem is editors who show up at AFDs predisposed towards !voting "delete" without follow WP:BEFORE, not bothering to even click the Google news archive search and see if there are any sources about. Notable articles get deleted all the time because no one was around who bothered to even look for reliable sources that give them significant coverage. Dream Focus 11:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. "If the Rescue tag exists..." - if. Bulwersator (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exist argument isn't relevant here. That's for articles. Totally different situation. Dream Focus 11:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality wikilawyering ("The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion discussions for templates, images, categories, stub types, redirects and especially articles.") Bulwersator (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be allowed to remove one tag you don't like, and not others? That was my point. I wasn't arguing we should exist because they do, I was focusing on the part about removing a tag to be disruptive. Dream Focus 12:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this is not only a problem of the rescue template. It is becoming clear to me that there is a basic flaw in the AfD procedure, and ARS exploits that flaw. The basic flaw is that "No concensus" defaults to "Keep", so inclusionists and ARS only need to push for a "no concensus" to get an article kept. This means they are not really working towards concensus (why would they?). If you look at AfD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street, then I see Dream just trying everything to disagree. Proposing to change the name of the article(as if that will make the topic notable), and when that doesn't work suggest that the delete voters are coming from an "I don't like it" attitude (where all delete voters are clearly making their case based on policy). This kind of "rescue activity" is only wasting editor's time and not making the AfD process more efficient. I see the same on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weather websites in the Philippines. Northamerica added three sources, and when I pointed out issues with them he responded by moving one of the sources into external links. But , he doesn't address the issue of the two remaining sources being primary sources, or the argument that no list article is needed when you have only two sourced items to put into it. Just ends with the comment "still needs more work". Well, if they haven't found any reliable sources after 10 full days of rescue team 'working' on it, then wouldn't it make more sense to change their vote to "Delete" ? Makes me wonder: do these ARS members ever change their vote to "Delete"? Seems like that is a once in a blue moon event.

But this is to be expected as long as you have the no concensus defaulting to keep. More than a few admins will close an AfD as "no concensus" as soon as there is a significant number of Keep votes. And that's what some ARS members try to take advantage of. Concensus is not what the keep voters need. This problem will not go away by deleting the rescue template. I think the "no concensus" closing got to go. Then all editors will need to work to a concensus outcome. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weather websites in the Philippines. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What youre perhaps missing is the huge disparity between how easy it to destroy and how much hard work is needed to create. For all but the best of the best, writing to good article standard can take about an hour per sentence. You often need to research and read far more sources than you add to get NPOV, and even once you have good sources it can be a struggle to integrate to an article while complying with the conflicting demands of our guidelines on Plagiarism and Original Research. On the other hand it takes only a few seconds to put a whole article up for deletion, and several of the more extreme deletionists to precious little else but waltz round the encyclopedia trying to destroy others work. Constructive editors already have to work orders of magnitude harder than deletionists. I really hope youre having a laff with that comment. As a parody of deletionist insanity it would be brilliant :-) . FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are editors who "precious little else but waltz round the encyclopedia trying to destroy others work" then you should be asking for them to be banned from AfDs as this is disruptive. Especially if they are AfDing articles which are at GA. Meanwhle this is more likely to be a red herring - no, it's more than that looking at what you wrote again, it's a suggestion that 'deletionists' are not constructive editors, and presumably that 'inclusionists' are constructive editors. That of course does not reflect reality nor does such language aid this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing as you suggest would cause much time wasting drama, hurt folks feelings for no good reason, and likely have no positive effect as they'd just make new accounts. Whats needed is an institutional change to make it harder for knowledge to be destroyed, so that this project can once again pursue it founding m:vision to collect all the worlds knowledge. With newbies being cherished and welcomed rather than derided as producers of crap. Realistically there seems little hope of creating community consensus for this. Happily, as the Foundation collect additional empirical evidence on the harm caused by the wrecking crew, there is always the chance they'll do the necessary. In the meantime this tag has clear and obvious benefits for improving the encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Out of context there. My comment was "If people are having trouble with the word "rumor" perhaps a different word could be used. Would calling it Misconceptions covered in the media related to Sesame Street make any difference?" Sometimes its just a certain word that people are bothered by, so I offered that suggestion. And with all the media coverage of every section in that article, obviously it should be kept. Dream Focus 12:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Dream as ever was being extremely patient and collegial in respectfully trying to find a workable compromise that all could agree on. Their faith in the possibility of deletionists seeing reason is admireable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable. How much work has gone in creating an article is never an argument for keeping or deleting.

@Dream. Maybe the ARS project should study the WP:N page a bit better. Having media coverage does NOT mean that an article should "obviously" be kept. First of all, the coverage needs to be "reliable" and "in depth". And if that is case, then we have to ask ourselves whether it needs a standalone article, or is better placed into an already existing article (merge or smerge). To quote form the WP:N page (about notable topics): "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page."

So, it is a bit more complicated than just finding coverage. The sesame street rumors (only 5 small paragraphs) would easily find a place in already existing articles, something that was pointed out by many editors, but is never addressed by any ARS member. Seems like you are just aiming for a "no concensus" by continuing to disagree. So, let me repeat my question: where are the examples of ARS members changing their vote from Keep to Delete, after their rescue tag has come on an article? If such examples are rare to find , then it supports my point that this project is rarely/never changing its mind and often just aiming at getting 'no concensus' closures on the article "it" has decided to keep. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I disagree with someone, I respond to what they said, just as others do to me. I'm not doing it to try to aim at getting a "no consensus" closure. And I, along with other ARS regulars, have in fact voted delete at times, including on articles tagged for Rescue. I even said delete on one article, and then after someone pointed out an error in my reasoning, I changed it to keep. [3] I'm not beyond reason. I don't just argue to get my way. I listen to others, I think about what they say, and I respond accordingly. And notice how in that example, once again, a certain ARS hater takes a jab at the ARS and makes a ridiculous accusation. Dream Focus 13:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any strikethrough indicating you changed your vote there. And I was asking for a change from Keep to Delete (not the other way round). Anyway, do you agree that articles are not kept just because there is coverage?

You voted keep on the Phillipines weather directory list article. Why don't you come change your vote to Delete now that your rescue team has only come up with two primary sources after 10 days? I suppose you agree that primary sources are not sufficient to prove notability? And I suppose you agree that having two or three poorly sourced items is not enough to create a "list" article for them?

I have nothing against the idea of a rescue team as such, but if their rescue efforts have not found anything after 10 days, then wouldn't it be logical for them to come and change the Keep votes they piled on from day 1? I would expect people who are engaged in rescue to follow up a bit on the articles they have tagged. But most of them are never seen again after they voted. That doesn't even look good to editors who are more neutral in keep/delete matters.. This could well be one of the reasons why AfD discussions have had declining participation. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it at [4]. I believe I changed from keep to delete before, but nothing comes to mind straight away. I do read the sources and the cases presented. And the weather discussion doesn't need to be dragged here. A list article is fine if some of the items on it get news coverage. Consensus on what entries should be there or not, and by what criteria, can be discussed on the talk page. Dream Focus 13:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dragging the weather discussion here. I am just using it to make the point clear, and asking why nobody of the rescue team is coming back to change their vote to Delete after their project has not found independent sources within 10 days? So, if ARS finds nothing to support the article, they don't care and let their Keep votes be? That's good to know. So, and do you agree that articles are not kept just because there is coverage? Do you agree that two items is not enough to create a list article? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see four people saying keep, and only two of us are ARS. I've never seen the other two names before at all, they finding their way there by other means. Three people agree with the nominator and say delete, all making the rather unconvincing NOT DIR argument. I see nothing wrong with a list article that has blue links to other Wikipedia articles, or list other entries that are notable. If you wish to discuss the inclusion criteria of what goes on the list, you can do so on the talk page. Talk:List of weather websites in the Philippines#Inclusion criteria Don't get upset that people weren't swayed over by your argument enough to change their vote. Dream Focus 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weather websites in the Philippines. Perhaps matters regarding this particular article should be discussed at its AfD. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 2[edit]

• Comment. I think everyone here - editors recommending Keep and Delete alike - needs to take a step back, have a nice cup of tea, and re-read WP:AGF. It feels like a goddamn arbcom case in here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree. If you cannot follow WP:NICE, at least consider WP:CIVIL. (It turns out those are the same place!)--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All very nice on paper. But when does good faith become blind faith? Throughout this discussion, people who nominate articles for deletion have repeatedly been branded "evil", "pathological", "destructive" and so on... We should just be nice and continue to assume good faith, then? There is a point where this becomes denial, and I don't want to be in denial. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify its only yourself and one of the delete voters who have used the word evil here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, read your own contributions if you want. You have been using terms like pathology and destroy/destructive all the time. No need to blame me for it. Here are a few diffs: [5] , [6] , [7]. At the same time you are trying to tell us that inclusionists are by definition "respectful" of other people and their work: [8]. That gives a whole new meaning to the word respectful. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has its limits, as a hypothetical we ought not to respect the work of a torturer, nor should we respect "work" that involves needlessly destroying interesting and useful articles which others have laboured to build up. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feyd, this really isn't helping your case; you personally have, just now, practically proven the existence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which this template (and arguably the ARS as a whole) promotes. --NYKevin @306, i.e. 06:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, and now people who disagree with the current workings of ARS are being compared to "torturer". Maybe my understanding of English is poor , but is the use of the name "squadron" in itself not already evidence of a battleground mentality? Squadron is a military term, isn't it? I think their name should be changed to "article rescue team" or "article rescue project" to give it a more cooperative tone. We cannot complain about battleground mentality when there are "squadrons" going round on WP. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No ones comparing delete voters to torturers, or saying theyre pathological as individuals. Its the excessive orientation towards deletionism thats pathological, something that seems to have affected much of the community. The ARS are an essential countervailing influence, thanks to the beneficial effects of this template. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which was entirely predictable, given the subject matter. What we're seeing here are the exact same tactics that (some) ARS folk deploy in most AfDs; a full-frontal assault on nearly everyone that weighs in for deletion, hoping to push the discussion to such dizzying lengths that they land the "no consensus, default to keep" close. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean the result would be WP:TLDR. Still, the statement that it cannot be removed until the AfD closes may make it a ((db-policy)) violation. We went through this before, and there was no consensus that it was consistent with policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a straw man. What the template actually says is "Please leave this tag in place until the discussion has closed." That is not a command — it is a polite request. It is similar to our common convention that comments in AFD discussions are left alone by other editors. Sometimes there are exceptions but it is usually uncontroversial and, as an established practise, represents our general policy. That's what policy is - something which we customarily do. Warden (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not. Dream Focus's comments in that thread are illustrative of actual practice, not the wording of the template. Horologium (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is illuminating. Apparently the instructions on the template are just suggestions for the ARS but binding laws for everyone else. Why should the Arrogant Ruleslawyer Squadron be allowed to impose these blatantly self-serving rules on the entire Wikipedia community when they consider anything that requires forethought and responsibility from them to be just a "polite request"? Reyk _YO! 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Tarc, what are you talking about? First off, articles usually end in Keep or delete, and for those tagged for ARS keep more often. You can see recent stats at [9] We certainly don't have any tactic. You on the other hand regularly take a swipe at the ARS when you come across us in any AFD. Dream Focus 18:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I take swipes because I view you as a net negative to this project. Tarc (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Straightforward keep, because no one has yet to present any actual reason for deletion. The delete votes range from incoherent jibberjabber to typical handwaving. On this of all days we should not be trying to stifle human knowledge and progress. Let's not dishonor of the memory of Dr. King in that manner. If anything, don't just keep this template, but use it to replace the disgusting, divisive, etc. Afd template, which can safely be deleted and that we see stinking up the place all too often (Redacted) --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The deletion reasons have called the ARS out for using it to canvass keep votes, noted that it is unfair for one wikiproject to advertise itself in article-space, that it is redundant to the AfD template. It is a bit shady to simply dismiss arguments that one either cannot or will not counter as jibberjabber" or "typical handwaving". None one of the ARS crowd has been able to answer just why they need a template out on the article itself, when a categorization/sorting of the AfD would suffice. Also, invoking King to save a template is beyond reprehensible. Tarc (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm in the keep side, but your personal attack on the delete voters, The Bachmann Editor Overdrive, is very unhelpful. That kind of votes makes me think there's an unfixable battleground mentality with certain members of the group. Secret ^account 20:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a bit of difficulty taking TBEO seriously, I'd like to Agf, but I think he/she is more or less just expressing irritation about the deletion of an article about a relative of our future vice-president. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, useful for nothing but canvassing. Prodego ^talk 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per TechnoSymbiosis, Reyk, Hut 8.5, and fluffernutter, among other good arguments above. This has always been a problematic template and has been effectively used as a canvassing tool far more often than it has been used to effectively source articles. The template does not help AfD, on the contrary it inflames the battles that take place there and encourages the "us versus them" mentality that pervades every discussion focusing on the ARS (including, of course, this one). When I participated regularly at AfD I found the articles tagged with this to be the among the most intense battlegrounds of Wikilawyering and needless drama, and the articles under discussion usually benefited little from the hassle. Removing this tag would stop needless canvassing and temper the drama that makes AfD such a stressful place to volunteer. ThemFromSpace 20:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this template notifies user that at least one wikipedian cares about the article. It helps drawing people to gathering sources. At least one of my AfD nominations was kept due to the several sources thrown in by people coming over such template. I would consider the arguments of nominator (of this TfD) as a discontent about being unable to game the system by closing AfDs with delete result without proper discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as nothing has changed since the prior discussion. If there has been actual canvassing (and not inneundo, supposition, or perception thereof), then proof should be provided. The deletion request is a huge failure to WP:AGF, and serves no purpose that will improve the project. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the AFD was filed by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), who is probably the most enthusiastic employer of this template, and one of its indefatigable supporters. You may disagree with the rationales provided, but you yourself are failing to assume good faith by attacking those who are participating in a discussion initiated by a member of the Article Rescue Squadron. Horologium (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, although I’ve weighed in above with my Keep argument already, having reviewed the entirety of this discussion many times, I think there’s more to think about than just the ARS tag. WP:CANVASS has been invoked by many in the above discussion and I believe it, not the ARS tag, is at the root of this contention. The following are three excerpts of policy, guidelines and an explicit comment from the AfD talk page:

From: WP:CANVASS: In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour.

From WP:CONSENSUS: Canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is fine – even encouraged – to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter

From:WT:Articles for Deletion WP:BEFORE is not a policy or even a guideline. There are several good reasons why it's not, and why bringing it up in an AfD debate is usually a crap argument. Firstly, it reverses the burden of evidence; I've seen "arguments" along the lines of "Keep- nominator hasn't explained how they followed BEFORE". But it's not up to the nominator to jump through hoops, it's up to the people defending the article to find the material that justifies it.

If one examines these three excerpts from the perspective of the Keeps and Deletes in this discussion one might make these interpretations:

• The Keeps might say: The ARS tag contributes to: improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus

  The Deletes might say: The ARS tag results in the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate.

  The Keeps might say: The ARS tag is consistent with: While it is fine – even encouraged – to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments

  The Deletes might say: The ARS tag results in it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter.

  Then from the WT:Articles for Deletion comment above one can deduce the following: ‘’The editor who nominates an article for deletion has no obligation to improve the article, and can explicitly put the burden on others to improve it, but in no way can anyone explicitly call attention to the improvements needed or generate editor support to actually improve the article, because that would bias the discussion and thus would be disruptive.

• If our goal is to Build the encyclopedia and we want to continue to do it through real consensus, then we need to take a very critical look at how WP:CANVASS is written and invoked. This discussion is a clear indication that it’s not serving us well today.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point Mike, the improvement of content ought to be one of our top priorities. Sounds like at a minimum we ought to amend WP:CANVASS to explicitly exempt this template. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think the result of this discussion can, will, or shall be to ascribe the rescue tag more exemptions and special exceptions than it already has. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with but in no way can anyone explicitly call attention to the improvements needed or generate editor support to actually improve the article. I think posting it to an Afd is doing that. Anyone who wants to improve articles should just look at the list of Afds. It doesn't need a specific template that calls attention to only certain articles. A wikiproject tag should not be in mainspace to boot. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 800 articles put up to AfD in a week. Usually ~120 per day. Now, what are the odds of someone finding a article that is on a notable topic, yet has major issues. No one goes through all 120 nominations every day, trying to find an article to fix. I don't know of any editors who would have time for that. The point of the Article Rescue Squadron is to have a team of editors who regularly participate at AfD, who go through some of the articles, and attempt to improve articles they feel may meet the notability guidelines. Now, they may not be able to fix all of the issues on their own. Which is why there is a rescue template, to attract other editors to the article so that the issues may be addressed. Yes, it also attracts editors that don't improve articles, but overall the project does a good job in improving articles. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take that long to skim 120 articles to determine if a subject is close enough to notable to be saved. As for if the project does a good job that is up for debate. I personally haven't seen a single article that ARS members have piled onto improved in any significant way. Saying that I am sure there are some that are, but I haven't really ever seen one, usually I just see a lot of per X keeps and refusal to change from keep to delete when its been proved a subject isn't notable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't take that long to skim 120 articles to determine if a subject is close enough to notable to be saved." It does if you're not doing it wrong. " I personally haven't seen a single article that ARS members have piled onto improved in any significant way." Well, for you, I'm sure it won't take long to skim my 15,000+ plus contributions to find a few.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso, I am surprised that you actually missed my point. If it is not the responsibility of the editor nominating an article for deletion to improve the article if possible, and that responsibility lies elsewhere, but any attempt (regardless of methodology) to solicit improvement from other editors is frowned upon in the name of WP:CANVASS because it would bias the deletion discussion, we have a problem. What your really advocating is that any improvement to an article once it is in AfD ought to be accidental and that any methodology that actually results in improvements to an article are inherently detrimental to the goals of the deletion process.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. What I am saying is that there doesn't need to be two ways of asking for help. That the actual listing of the Afd is essentially stating that this article either needs help or needs to be deleted. Using a second tag to specifically target editors on one extreme of the deletion/inclusion debate is detrimental as it is likely to lead (and by all accounts has led) to simple vote stacking instead of any actual improvement to the article, because who needs to improve the article if you can just stack the votes to stop its deletion. A centralized place to list pages that are up for deletion is great....except we already have one called Afd. Anyone that wants to improve and save articles can easily go check for them there. Also I think the nom should at least try to follow WP:BEFORE as well. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mike, I think you are the one missing the point. This tag is specifically for drawing attention to articles facing deletion. It does this by saying the article is in need of "rescue" and strongly implies the article should not be deleted, encouraging members to "save" the article. Clearly the effect is more likely going to be a flood of keep votes than any noteworthy improvement to articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making an assumption Clearly the effect is more likely going to be a flood of keep votes than any noteworthy improvement to articles that as far as I can tell, is completely unsupported by any empirical evidence. Its what you want to believe because it supports the tactical goals of deletion, not the strategic goals of building the encyclopedia. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you presume I am a deletionist just because I see something wrong with the template. I looked at quite a few of the articles that have been "rescued" and saw that quite a few had seen little to no improvement since being "rescued" so they would probably still be candidates for deletion. I am not the only one who has noticed that the "improvements" ARS makes in response to this tag are often on the surface, with their most significant activities to "rescue" an article being to vote keep. Certainly there are some articles that should be kept that are deleted just as there are articles that should be deleted but are kept. Then there are those that should be merged or redirected. Why I have a problem with this tag is that it appears to mostly serve as a way for inclusionists to canvass deletion discussions, gaming the process of consensus-building that Wikipedia depends on.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Djsasso, I think it’s reasonably lame to characterize AfD as a good methodology for asking for help to improve an article because it puts priority on deletion, not improvement. Just for grins, what if there was no ARS tag, but instead all AfDs were trancluded to the ARS project pages so that once an article hit AfD, ARS members could then go out and solicit help from other editors and projects to improve the articles that could and should be improved—ie. add sources, demonstrate notability, etc. And that’s all they did, improve articles at AfD. They never weighed-in with Keep votes at the Afd, nor did any of the other editors that worked to improve the article weigh-in at Afd. The majority of the votes at AfD would be delete and the article would be deleted. Any energy spent improving the article would be wasted. If an AfD nom has no responsibility to improve an article, and those that do improve the article can’t weigh-in because their keep votes bias the discussion, who defends the improvements made to the article. In my experience at AfD, noms rarely care about improvements and generally fight any efforts to reconsider deletion, even once an article is improved.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike - I have provided six recent AFDs and a list of use of the rescue tag that show an effort to canvass. The evidence was rejected by the ARS. If you cannot accept the arguments presented to you, it is impossible to discuss with you.--v/r - TP 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Its not the arguments here that are in question, its the wording of WP:CANVASS that makes this discussion problematic. So when you are saying the ARS is canvassing are you saying? The ARS is trying to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus (That's the 1st sentence in CANVASS) or are you saying ARS has the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. (That's the second sentance in CANVASS)? Difficult distinction isn't it. There is good canvassing and there is bad canvassing and the guideline encourages the good and discourages the bad. But which applies to ARS? --Mike Cline (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the intention of the project is your first description but the method and means are the second. Specifically "Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking."--v/r - TP 19:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to characterize what you’ve just said (as I interpret it) it would be this way: ARS we applaud what your trying to do to improve the encyclopedia and build consensus around articles up for deletion, but we also are going to do everything in our power to handcuff your ability to do it because we don’t and won’t endorse your methods no matter how collaborative they might be. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be reading it half right. I'd put it like this "ARS we applaud what your trying to do to improve the encyclopedia and build consensus around articles up for deletion, but we expect you to follow the same rules everyone else has to live by."--v/r - TP 20:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem with ARS members trying to improve the article and voting keep. The problem is that that almost never happens. This tag is almost exclusively used to canvass and rarely to improve. If the project could keep a reign on their blind keep tendencies then there probably wouldn't be the reaction to this template that there is. Heck I would be first in line to say keep if it were ever used in the "ideal" way that many of the keep people here think it is used but reality says it is rarely used that way. As such something needs to be done, the easiest and probably best solution is to remove the tool being used to canvass inappropriately. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument of articles being "improved" (or not) as a result of the rescue tag is a moot point. AfD is not about improving articles, it is about pondering the question whether the topic is notable enough for inclusion in wp, AND if so, whether it needs a standalone article or not. Even a very bad article consisting of only one line, will be kept if the topic is notable and worthy of a standalone article. Even the most improved and well written article will be deleted if the topic is not notable. That's just how it is, but many ARS members seem to disagree with that policy.

Actually it doesn't make much sense to work on improving an article if it is not sure that it will be kept. So logically, major improvements are typically made after an article is kept (or that's how it should be). Unfortunately that often doesn't happen, and if it happens it is usually because "wikify" or "copyedit" tags being put on it by other projects.

The normal AfD procedure is being disturbed by sudden flood of Keep votes coming in after the rescue tag comes on. That's what we saw in examples that have been cited. And I have seen no examples of ARS members changing their votes from Keep to Delete, even if no reliable sources are produced. Coming to a Delete concensus seems to be near impossible for them once their rescue tag is on it.

People who want to improve/rescue articles are not being stopped from doing so once that rescue template is gone. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mainly per the logistical issues (project with template in article space, rules against removing tag) as summarized by Fluffernutter and from personal first hand knowledge (as shown by Yaksar) of how this tag draws keep votes to AfDs. If members of the ARS were really concerned with improving articles, then they could: 1) find RS covering the topic, 2) write prose and improve the article, 3) cite the new prose with the sources found in step 1, and then 4) !vote keep on the AfD page, referencing the work they have done. Instead, the users of this tag seem to 1) add a half dozen purported sources to the AfD discussion, 2) tag the article, and 3) wait for other members of the ARS to !vote keep based on the sources found. The sources are never used to develop the article—the only purpose is to avoid deletion. In my own experience the sources are quite often borderline RS, but closing admins default to keep or no consensus based on the volume level of the ARS debaters. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Should we also be nominating deletion of the AfD template since there are plenty of editors ignoring WP:BEGIN and nominating things without researching the topic? Of couse not. Per UltraExactZZ: "We don't delete a template simply because it is used improperly - we deal with the behavior that results in its misuse." Exactly (even ultra–exactly ). And per Xymmax: "used properly it attracts the attention of interested editors of the need to make timely improvements to an article before the 7-day period runs" Some sort of template like this is useful to seperate the articles worth saving from the shit articles that have no value. If this tempate's deleted, another one with similar function will soon take its place — just probably not in mainspace. How will that do anything to curtail any (mis–)use by the ARS? They'll just tag the AfD discussion or the article talk page. The only editors penalized would be the ones that are actually viewing the article and may genuinely have an interest in helping to fix it, and the AfD template gives them no guidance on how to proceed, while the rescue template does. Mojoworker (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep per User:Jclemens, User:MichaelQSchmidt, User:DGG, User:Secret, or in fact per everybody really. Now I am not looking to get people in trouble, but I have not edited in quite some time, but bafflingly (seriously, I edit articles on fish, what the heck does this have to do with FISH?!) I was approached off site by members of a group who is apparently coordinating the bulk if not all of the delete votes in this thread. They claim to belong to some

disruptive special interest group whose agenda can be found here. The message they are sending out is to get as many users as possible to show up to this discussion to go after their enemies, who they call "inclusionists". I have no idea why they would think I would join them in their "crusade" (was I contacted by accident?) and to be honest I really do not appreciate being contacted in such a manner. I am no snitch (YOU know who you are and can feel ashamed for yourself!), but a quick read over the comments in this discussion demonstrates who is really here to build an encyclopedia and who is part of this off-wikipedia organization bent on ruining Wikipedia in a manner consistent with that legislation the website is actually protesting by going dark tomorrow. One need only look at the vicious, hateful, and immature remarks by User:Reyk and User:Tarc, in particular, to see what the so-called Association of Deletionist Wikipedians are all about. What's especially comical is their attempts at being witty (for example) just fall flat. The hypocrisy of targetting this Article Rescue Squadron while maintaining a group with a stated agenda of deleting articles and while conducting an off-site campaign to get as many supporters here as they can is sickening. I really hope that whoever closes this discussion gives weight to actual arguments, because it is beyond apparent that some significant amount of the deletes are hypocritically coming from a coordinated off-site campaign or are just run of the mill trolling. If anyone really does have an issue with special groups using canvassing, then they better shut down that Deletionist group as well, because otherwise hypocrisy reigns supreme. At least these rescue people's goals seem to be about improving articles rather than limiting human knowledge arbitrarily. The combative nature of those saying to "burn the template with fire" as someone actually posted just further proves what they are about. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus sion/Log/2012_January_13&diff=prev&oldid=471452259 here] and here, for example. Yeah, burning things was always what the real champions of history advocated... So, no I am not going to associate with those calling for "burning" and "killing" of things. Looking over other examples in this discussion, it looks like the rescue people are those who actually do the hard and real work of searching for sources and incorporating them into articles. What I am seeing here is people being miffed about being called out for their laziness to do that themselves or ignorance about whatever random topic they happen to personally not care about and so do not want Wikipedia to cover. If worse comes to worse, these rescue people improve the article. God forbid! Keeping this template seems to have potentially positive consequences, whereas deleting it is just giving into those want to lazily and ignorantly nominate things with as little opposition and embarrassment as possible. Merely having deletion discussions in the first place is what causes the so called battleground mentality. One article improvement group has no real effect on that and if anything they seem to either actually improve articles, which should be why we are here, or if they don't, well, just ignore them. No one makes anyone read any given post nor is anyone required to respond to and counter everything they disagree with. And please do not send me any more messages inviting me to discussions. Phew! Glad that's over. Thank you. --A Pocket Full of Sunshine 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear, are you accusing me of being part of an off-wiki canvassing operation? Reyk _YO! 20:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you know what, your accusation of a large coordinated off-wiki operation is fairly serious. If you, a person who did a handful of fish-related edits back in 2010, were contacted regarding this discussion then it would have to be a pretty comprehensive operation. In other words, we should expect a lot more random editors to have been contacted. So where are they? I think you're full of something alright, but it ain't sunshine. But if your allegation is true, it would imply massive wrongdoing by a very large segment of the Wikipedia community and so I ought to do the responsible thing and call for anyone else who has been contacted this way to come forward to tell us just who's behind this shadowy conspiracy and how wide it goes. Reyk _YO! 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, since it now looks like someone is setting me up, I may as well clarify. The person who emailed me emailed an email account I have since disabled to avoid any additional disruption. He signed as "Your pal, User:EditorXXV, just a User:A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea..." Since this user, who it looks like has a history of impersonating others, is apparently buddies with Tarc who from checking Google seems to have a history of bad edits, I think it is pretty clear what is going on here. They contacted me and God knows who else that didn't fall for it to disrupt this discussion and make it about someone they have some kind of grudge against. So, that was the plan, huh? Find some random (well, or did you look for an account that looked just right for your manipulation?) old account you could set up? How many others have you done that to? You used just enough vitriol to get me here, probably figuring, "Hey, at worst we get another delete vote, if he agrees with us anyway, but if all goes as planned..." Well, hook line and sinker, eh? And no, Reyk was NOT mentioned in any email, so I do not know if he/she is part of this and I do not really feel like wasting the time to see if he/she is part of their Association of Deletionist Super Pac. Heck, from it looks like, he/she is a possible victim of their games as well. I mentioned that user in my previous edit because I noticed his/her language toward others being fairly childish/disrespectful and consistent with the other guy/gal's tortuous tongue. I'm interested in fish, so unless you want to talk fish, please don't drag me into these messes! Heck if anything, the whole blackout of Wikipedia could be reworded as what this discussion seems to be about: "Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge. For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the Association of Deletionists is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more." And I'll leave it at that... --A Pocket Full of Sunshine 15:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There are scores of admins reading this. Why is this obvious sockpuppet still editing? Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I hope "buddies" was being used in a sarcastic sense, as "EditorXXV" is a long-running troll of the project as well as a WR regular. My talk page comment to him was just letting him kknow I know who the sock was. That's for thedeets.com link though, I'll add it to my wall of shame. Anyways, off to SPI to hopefully get rid of Mr. Sunshine here. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close as irrepairably tainted by off-wiki canvassing. VERTott and now A Pocket Full of Sunshine confess that they were contacted off-wiki. Very suspicious. CallawayRox (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's wait until we get to the bottom of this off-wiki stuff. As far as we know, it could just be invented out of thin air to try and manufacture just such a wikilawyer close. Reyk _YO! 20:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must be blind but I don't see where VERTott has stated that....not to mention no proof has been pro-offered. I find it highly suspicious that people !voting delete are now being accused of canvassing this discussion when a number of the delete !votes are based on canvass reasons. Seems to me like someone is trying to make it look like canvassing has happened. Especially considering one of those that were "canvassed" voted in the opposite direction. -DJSasso (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Altough VERTott was canvassed to !vote keep.... So if its happening it equalled itself out... -DJSasso (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)Vertott claims to have been canvassed by the pro-keep side, Sunshine by the pro-delete side. I think Vertott's claim is at least superficially plausible; they've used the rescue tag a lot in the past which would make Vertott a logical target for off-wiki canvassing. Pocket Full of Sunshine's account is just plain bizarre. I simply cannot understand why the only target of a pro-delete canvassing effort we know of would be a person with 50 odd fish-related edits two years ago and no history of getting involved with the inclusionist-deletionist debate. It's literally unbelievable and so I cannot support shutting down a productive conversation because of it. If we had more editors claiming to have been canvassed by the pro-delete side it would be a different story. Reyk _YO! 21:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it extremely peculiar to be referred to as "vicious, hateful, and immature" by a user with whom I have never interacted with. A user who until today has never edited WP: space apart from joining fish wiki-projects over a year ago. A user who was already using talkback templates 2 weeks after creation. I think A Nobody just kamakazied one of his sock accounts. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sunshine's account was created 10 days after the last update on Nobody's block log and they both seem to have strong pro-inclusion ideologies. Is it worth looking at SPI? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go for it. I'm convinced it's him. Reyk _YO! 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's the point? Any technical data has gone stale long ago, and frankly this isn't that big of a deal. No one actually believes that Pocket Full of Sunshine was canvassed, and as attempts to derail a discussion go this is equal parts fail and embarrassing. AniMate 00:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't mean to imply I wanted to start one, just if it was worth looking into. I'm not actually familiar with how SPI works and the pre-requisites. I agree that it's a pretty weak attempt to prevent the discussion from reaching its seemingly inevitable conclusion. With possible block evasion going on as well, I think his post has probably helped the deletionists more than the inclusionists in this discussion. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

irrepairably tainted, you are kidding, two cases when over 60 others have !voted does not come close to tainting anything. Neither have given anything in support of the claim, Reyk's analysis does give one pause to consider if there might be an attempt to derail a TfD that looks like it could end up with the template deleted, perhaps laying the foundation for a future appeal to WP:DRV. Mtking ^(edits) 23:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On close inspection of both users claiming they were canvassed, I'm inclined to agree. VERTott has a history of using the rescue template and stated in the past that he would normally "only get involved in Deletion's when I see an article trying to be deleted that should be kept"[10]. On the other hand, Sunshine has no prior history in AFD or ARS, enters the discussion with very strong opinions and attempts to reframe the discussion as an attack on the ARS. Even if canvassing were going on, both sides would be well aware that 'blind canvassing' of people with no prior history in AFD or ARS would only damage their cause rather than help it, so I find Sunshine's claim, along with his past fish-exclusive history, to be highly questionable. And predictably, neither of the claims of canvassing are supported by evidence so there's no reason to stifle valid discussion on the basis of two unsubstantiated and quite possibly politically motivated accusations. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: MakeSense64's delete below to counteract the "tricks." People are convinced that A Pocket Full of Sunshine is the great A Nobody trying to save the rescue tag. Noone cares if it's him or a troll!! CallawayRox (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Normally I don't vote, but will make an exception here after seeing what kind of tricks are being tried to derail this TfD discussion. To me the ARS members who voted here have failed to explain why their project cannot do just the same work without this template. They also fail to even aknowledge the canvassing concerns that arise out of the way they have been using their template. I was not an active editor at the time of previous TfD nominations for this template, but I did read through the previous discussion and it becomes quite clear that the community's objections to this template have increased considerably over time. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-The irony of the SOPA and WP Canvass – the juxtaposition of the SOPA Protests and this discussion provides an interesting irony. WP and 1000s of other websites openly canvassed their readers and advised them to vote-stack against SOPA to their representatives in Congress. They did this by putting tags and notices on their webpages. Isn’t interesting that a community like WP which itself uses WP:CANVASS as a weapon to discourage this type of behavior internally, actively engaged in this type of blatant canvassing behavior itself. In the case of SOPA, supporters of SOPA cried foul, dirty trick, et. al. Very similar to what’s going on here, those in favor of deletion at all costs, are crying foul on ARS—canvassing is evil and should be stopped. While those that believe saving worthy articles from deletion is a good cause and calling attention to that cause on article pages is a good thing are demonized. What irony! --Mike Cline (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm trying to formulate a proper response to this, but it is hard to type while snickering uncontrollably. Trying to martyr yourself by linking to the SOPA opposition is serious weaksauce, bro. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do snicker uncontrollably, I just woke up this morning thinking that this was a bit ironic, mostly because I believe WP:CANVASS is an ill-concieved and misused guideline as it stands in a collaborative environment. As far a martyring myself, does that hurt? Do I need some asprin to ease the pain? (I absolutely don't understand how (what would consitute) martyring myself!) --Mike Cline (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Double irony? List of legislators who support or oppose SOPA/PIPA is tagged for rescue (the only one improving the article since is the article creator, not anyone alerted by the rescue tag), and the AfD of course then attracted keeps from the ARS, for wonderful reasons like "Keep. Wikipedia has a tag at its top, and asks people their zip code so it can tell them who their politician is, and how to contact them about this issue. So yes, it belongs in Wikipedia." Who needs policy- or guideline based reasons when they can just claim that an article can be kept on Wikipedia because it is useful for people wanting to contact someone... Gives a whole new dimension to WP:SELF! Fram (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed --Mike Cline (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rest assured Mike, there area number of us - myself included - that firmly objected to Wikipedia being used for advocacy and political activism. It has nothing to do with personal agendas and everything to do with integrity. Personally I think it's disgraceful that a few hundred people, in a 72 hour period that wasn't even advertised properly until 30 hours in, were able to decide to throw away the years of effort by thousands of editors in building Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable, neutral and independent source of free information so that they could take part in a local politically motivated protest. Not that you said as much, but I'll say right now in the strongest possible terms that I reject any assertions that the SOPA blackout sets any precedent whatsoever for weakening or disregarding policies and processes like WP:CANVASS. It's bad enough that the protest now sets the precedent for political interest groups to hijack Wikipedia by nothing other than throwing up a 'should Wikipedia protest X' page backed by strength of votes and use it to promote their cause, or that by showing we are willing to take sides on an issue we have irreparably damaged our ability to claim neutrality; I won't have an extremely poor choice of action damage the project any further than it has already.

Drawing a comparison between the SOPA protest and the ARS is disingenuous at best. When small sample sizes are employed, as is the case in most Wikipedia discussions, canvassing has the destructive effect of unbalancing discussion and misleadingly casting the appearance of strong support or opposition. It doesn't matter if it's applied to Wikipedia or to the SOPA protest or to anything else, canvassing in any situation like that is fundamentally disruptive. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that my post above, was nothing more nor less than an observation of the irony. I am biased in observation because I don't believe WP:CANVASS the way it is invoked and used is good for WP. That said, the observation wasn't intended to be an endorsement or call to precedent of anything. We get way to touchy about these things. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your post may have been observational, granted, but I predicted before the SOPA blackout began that people would start using arguments along the lines of 'but we did it then' to try to get around well established guidelines. My intention for that is to respond firmly and early to try to head off issues like that before they even form. Certainly no direct or personal criticism was intended, and I hope you can take my response in the light it was intended. It would have been nice if more people read and understood the doctrine of unintended consequences before they voted on things like the SOPA blackout. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Quite a few keep !votes above state that they don't like WP:CANVASS. That's very interesting, but this is not a forum for overturning established guidelines. If you really think that you can do it, start a discussion at the talk page there; otherwise, your dislike of this guideline really isn't relevant. --NYKevin @196, i.e. 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — several reasons:
  1. There are numerous templates that already explicitly state how an article can be rescued. — These range from ((notability)) to ((unsourced)) to ((expert)) to the hundreds of other template messages— all with varying degress of "hey this article needs to be rescued" emphasis. The less urgent tend to be yellow, the orange tend to be more urgent. AfD is the last chance, and the redness of the template emphasizes this.
  2. The AfD template is already a ((rescue)) template — in fact, it's the last rescue template an article sees before deletion. Same goes with CSD and PROD-tagged articles.
  3. It's canvassing for keep !votes — any way you cut it. If ((rescue)) were used on all articles—not just disproportionately those in danger of deletion—then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. It's not. It's used to pseudo-legitimately rally those watching for transclusions of the template in order to sway the outcome of the AfD in favor of a particular wiki-political ideology. If an article can stand on its own merits, it doesn't need ((rescue))—it simply needs to be fixed. If it can't be fixed, then it gets deleted, without prejudice against re-creating or un-deleting it having fixed the issues that the AfD addresses—as has always been the case. The equivalent template for WP:DRV would be something like "((stillAwful))," which I assure you would result in it being deleted for canvassing delete !votes.

--slakr^\ talk / 05:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and maybe it is also good to observe that whenever the ARS team remains convinced that a given article stands to be deleted unnecessarily (which would mean losing useful work and page history), then they can always ask for userfication of the article (could even be userfied into their project space), giving them all the time they want or need to bring the article up to standards. So their argument that valuable work gets lost by useless deletions through AfD is also very weak. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that putting unfinished/problematic articles into projectspace would be redundant to WP:AI, but I otherwise agree. --NYKevin @372, i.e. 07:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with MakeSense64's proposal. That makes sense to me. We could even move the WP:AI under the ARS.--v/r - TP 20:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 3[edit]

• Comment - If we need further proof that this tag is designed more for wiki-political/ideological purposes rather than contributing positively to the project, take a note of Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Wikipedia Review. An article is tagged for rescue, but an ARS member bumps up to WP:3RR and then solicits other Squadron members to assist in its removal from an article covering a subject that they dislike. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged by Bali ultimate, a known ARS critic who hasn't improved the article at all. This is an attempt to distract and waste our resources. CallawayRox (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Callaway on this one. Bali's edit of "couldn't help myself" shows he did it to be pointy... No honest editor could take his edit seriously. And no it is not assuming bad faith, it is being realistic. Strange that it's his first edit in about a month too....--WR Reader (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, again, an article up for deletion has been brought to ARS's attention, but they decline the chance to rescue and instead edit-war to remove the tag in contravention to their own tag guidelines for usage. If that's the way ARS wishes to use it, in a "for me but not for thee" way, that's fine. But state that up front that this is purely a tag to call attention to other members and not really for the general public to use or be aware of. This only strengthens the case for deletion, however. Tarc (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if it is as you two say, that Bali is being disruptive, what this does accurately show is that the ARS is willing to canvass each other.--v/r - TP 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it shows one recent member of ARS inappropriately canvassing for edit warriors. That doesn't reflect on the rest of the ARS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • How many active ARS members have to be caught doing it before we can say it is accepted as a cultural norm in the ARS? What has the ARS done to combat the 1) actual incidents, and 2) the perception?--v/r - TP 21:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • This little incident demonstrates exactly why this tag is so problematic. It promotes a battleground mentality where only the members of the ARS are allowed to dictate how and where the tag is used. AniMate 21:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly because I could not find a useful purpose for this template. It only seems to exist to get members of a specific Wikiproject to retain articles at all costs. As long as lobbying (or canvassing, as it is called here) in general is discouraged on Wikipedia, this template should be deleted. --Conti|✉ 20:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep why is the nominator, was using this very same template so much that User:TParis wrote: "Northamerica1000 should be banned from using the ((t|rescue)) template"[11]? He/she then turns around and puts that same template up for deletion? Regardless of the outcome of this TfD, Wikipedia:request for comment/Northamerica1000 should be opened on Northamerica1000's combative and "abusive" editing. Okip 23:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination was procedural in nature (i.e. nominator does not support deletion and came here after people elsewhere suggested deleting the template). A few "procedural speedy keep" !votes have been made, but haven't really received much support since you can only speedy keep if there are no delete !votes. If you have a keep rationale, please state it. --NYKevin @235, i.e. 04:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion may have been canvassed by the (procedural, keep-leaning) nominator it wasn't. See this thread. --NYKevin @240, i.e. 04:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No. This discussion has NOT been canvassed. (See comments below). Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• With regard to the allegation of canvassing, it appears that NA1000 left TFD notifications for Tlogmer, Arthur Rubin and Okip only. I have asked them on their talk to comment but, on the face of it, this does not seem to be a mass canvassing effort. Tlogmer created the template and Okip and Arthur have both worked extensively on it. In such case, the notifications are in accordance with long standing practise and do not constitute canvassing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just repeating what Okip said on the linked thread. I haven't investigated enough to have an opinion either way. --NYKevin @251, i.e. 05:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Per section 3 of the guidelines when nominating a template for deletion/discussion, (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion), "it is considered civil to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template." I simply notified a few users who contributed significantly to the template, per the revision history for the page— Located Here. User:Okip was a significant contributor to the template. There was no "canvassing", "selective canvassing", etc. I simply followed the instructions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) As Okip is retired, he may not be actively monitoring this; since he made the accusation, he may want to retract it in light of this. So maybe someone should tell him of these developments on his talk page? --NYKevin @258, i.e. 05:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)I think I am completely independent on this allegation given that I have voted delete, completely disagree with NA1000 in many areas and am one of the evil deleters that the ARS so valiantly combats but I would like to record for the record that I do not believe that NA1000 has canvassed and that I have never seen them act outside the written letter of our guidelines and policies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict × 3) OK, I've struck it. If I never have to see another edit conflict it'll be too soon... --NYKevin @263, i.e. 05:19, 21 January 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK Diesel Train Technical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template appears to have only been ever used on British Rail Class 58 and duplicates the function of Template:Infobox locomotive - I've move all the info into the infobox (even that which is uncited) - Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 58 is a related deletion proposal Mddkpp (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplicating other templates. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 21:21, 14 January 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 58 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template appears to have only been ever used on British Rail Class 58 (also see talk page) and duplicates thye function of Template:Infobox locomotive - I've move all the info into the infobox (even that which is uncited) - Template:UK Diesel Train Technical is a related deletion proposal Mddkpp (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 21:21, 14 January 2012 (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.