Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Flagging

At present, nine articles are listed in the ATHBPFDBTMCET category. Hakomi and Starlight Information Visualization System are savable and I added some references. Jeff M. Giordano and Ron Kurtz are not savable. Hazy, nebulous topics such as Godzilla in popular culture, List of cultural references to Stephen King, Pregnancy in science fiction, Silent protagonist, and Society and Star Trek should not be part of this project. With only two out of nine article worth saving or consistent with this project, I think we need better efforts on determining what gets listed in the ATHBPFDBTMCET category and what does not. -- Jreferee t/c 08:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you propose? To me it seems like the population of AfD articles is limited and as the tag expires within a week it's not that big-o-deal that an article could be tagged in error. In fact, I think it shows how neutral the project is, only articles that editors deem worth of working on get attention. If something is not savable then it will indeed be gone within a week, if it is savable and it gets worked on then it will survive until possibly renominated. Benjiboi 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm more in agreement with Benjboi here. In fact, from the titles alone I see no articles that probably couldn't be resecued if someone is willing to rescue them. (Having read Silent protagonist, that one at least is uncomfortably close to an exercise in original research.) Sometimes valid ideas for Wikipedia are presented in invalid ways; & just because someone puts them into a category for consideration shouldn't keep an Admin from closing the debate in favor of delete if there are no other valid reasons to keep the article. -- llywrch 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably even S.P. one could be done properly, if someone decided to do it from sources. As for Jeepday;s examples, i suggest it is particularly the ones he thins are nebulous which need our attention--the most salient objection to such articles is generally that the individual items are unsourced,and therefore not shown to be notable even enough for article content. That's the sort of thing we can find. DGG (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

rescue bots

Does it make sense for a bot to be created that would either alert us or simply removed the rescue tag from articles that aren't under AfD? I've removed another tag from an article but for housekeeping purposes it might make sense to have a bot do this automatically so that a tag isn't left for more than a day after AfD has closed or otherwise been removed. Benjiboi 17:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion about bots is that they've help create the situation that led to creating an Article Rescue Squadron. Until the number of articles tagged for attention by ARS gets to the point where one person can't flush out any expired tags in an hour's time, let's avoid using one. (Then again, if we find 100 or more articles tagged for deletion that should be saved, there is a bigger problem with the AfD process that bots won't fix.) -- llywrch 18:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuddly Duddly

The AfD for Cuddly Duddly is about ready to be closed, so I added the rescue template to the article and now am requesting permission to use the template. I did add references to the article and if you look at my comments in the AfD, you will see that this is a topic that can be resuced due to a mistake in the spelling of the article name making it more difficult to find references. Please add referenced material to the Cuddly Duddly article. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 16:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I added some content and refs but it needs more like some context of children's TV in the 1960's? Benjiboi 19:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Update. Article saved. Benjiboi 03:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hakomi and Ron Kurtz

I had placed the rescue template on the Hakomi article as well as the Ron Kurtz article. Someone removed it from the former citing it belonged on the talk page, however, this editor did not bother to move it. I have now put it up on the talk page. Whether the same thing happened to the Kurtz article I couldn't tell since it has now been deleted. A significant effort has been invested (by an ARS member, I believe) to provide the Hakomi article with needed references, and hopefully it will not be deleted. This is still uncertain, though, as the majority in the deletion discussion has yet to sway. I would imagine that it is feasible to have the Ron Kurtz article undeleted if effort is put to it, should the Hakomi article itself survive. __meco

Note, both have been rescued. Benjiboi 03:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Not so. __meco 08:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Huh!? What happened? Benjiboi 09:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Update Hakomi saved, Ron Kurtz not. Benjiboi 03:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for Rescue (Re: U.B. Funkeys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.B._Funkeys --JRTyner 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rescue tag has been added for this article about a toy, it seems reasonably well written and needs references besides the new York Times article. Benjiboi 03:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Update. U.B. Funkeys saved. Benjiboi 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm Not Sorry.net

More of the sources presented at AfD could be integrated. WP:STYLE issues. Handily passes WP:WEB. Ichormosquito 07:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added some abortion tags and See also, AfD seems all keeps at the moment, please flare for help if things turn and the article needs TLC ASAP. Benjiboi 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Good job. It's starting to look healthy. Ichormosquito 21:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Update. I'm Not Sorry.net saved. Benjiboi 03:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

2 articles tagged

Gay and lesbian retirement and Shane E. Burkett -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Update. Gay and lesbian retirement deletion is up for review. Could anyone who is experinced with AfD and deletion review process please take a look. I think the article was wrongly deleeted but I may be missing something. Benjiboi 19:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Update. Gay and lesbian retirement Deleted but overturned (likely to be renamed), Shane E. Burkett improved but failed notability. Benjiboi 03:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't much more than an annotated list but it is a notable topic. I've done some searching for sources and added some more encyclopaedic information to the page; I've also listed some additional sources on the talk page. However I'm quite busy in 'real life' at the moment and not able to do much more for a while so it'd be great if someone else could have a look at the page. I think it needs introductions to the sections I haven't looked at and some of the lists need pruning. Thanks! --Zeborah 08:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • "X in popular culture" lists are often deleted, especially list-style ones. Just trimming this article won't rescue it, it needs a total rewrite and a removal of most of the specific examples. In popular culture articles should discuss the impact on pop culture at large, not just play "I spy". --Phirazo 17:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
That's fine - if someone wanted to delete all the examples I'd have no objections (though I think very select examples to illustrate a point would still be fine, right?) I don't agree that it's about the impact on pop culture - as long as it's some kind of notable phenomenon in itself, which this is - but do agree that it shouldn't be "I Spy". I'm not fond of pop culture articles in general but this is a notable subject so any help you could give to improve the article would be really helpful. --Zeborah 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Even "In popular culture" articles I consider to be good (Nuclear weapons in popular culture, for example) have illustrative examples of a concept's use in pop culture. Specific examples are good, but laundry lists get deleted more often than not. Librarians as a stock character or a trope is probably notable, but I'm not sure who studies or writes about this sort of thing. --Phirazo 01:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, other than the TV Tropes wiki [1]. --Phirazo 01:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The people who study and write about this are librarians, mostly. :-) There are plenty of sources - I've used several already, listed several more on the talk page there and can probably find more. If you or someone else has access to those journals and could write something based on those articles, that'd be wonderful; but it'd be equally useful if someone were to go in and delete the 'laundry lists'. --Zeborah 04:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and we all know how crufty librarians are... Not too good at taking care of their laundry. Speaking of which, here's a very sick one that got nominated for deletion: List of fictional diseases (how it looked then [2]). I took it to my sandbox and cleaned it up. What I'm thinking of, is that they have a similar theme (no I don't mean librarians are diseases), and that maybe we should try to give them a similar format. Any thoughts?--victor falk 08:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghosttown

Ghosttown was saved, but now we are voting on if a reference should stay or go at Talk:Ghosttown, Oakland, California. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also part of the deletion of Ghosttown is the man who's reference is used for the article: Dan Antonioli. Please help save this one too.

Case to consider

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#A_Faraway_Ancient_Country. IMO this is a job for the squadron. Mukadderat 22:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the style in which it was deleted might have been harsh (I'm no expert on deleting things) it does seem hard to defend an entry for the book at this time as Google doesn't even pop much sources. Perhaps after some mainstream media coverage post some reviews of the book? Benjiboi 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it will be clear fom the discussion: the issue is not this particular article: the issue is that the admin does not follow (or soes not know) policied about speedy deletion. If everyone starts deleting on a whim the squadron will be without the work :-). I suggest to discuss the issue. However if ARS is not a discussion club, but rather an action force, I can understand that. Mukadderat 04:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagged

Student Youth Network ---- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a handful of grants w/refs. Benjiboi 07:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Update, article saved. Benjiboi 20:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nody Parker

Tagged by User:Bearian. IMHO not really a candidate for rescue, the article seems to fail WP:BIO. --Phirazo 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Proportional approval voting

Tagged for rescue by User:Bearian. --Phirazo 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ivo Heuberger

Tagged for rescue by User:Bearian. This biography does seem to pass WP:BIO (a competitor who has "played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.") --Phirazo 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Update. saved. Benjiboi 07:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page clean-up

Could someone clean off old threads to archives as appropriate? I'll do it if no one else wants to. Benjiboi 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wooster School

Update, Wooster School survived AfD. Benjiboi 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian vela

Philippa Hanna

Shinnok's amulet

Assassinations in fiction

--Phirazo 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

update. Keep - nomination withdrawn. Benjiboi 07:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename

Now that the previous rename discussion (to drop "squadron") has been closed, I think I'd like to propose renaming to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squad. There were several interesting suggestions in the discussion to replace "squadron". I think "squad" might be the best compromise. I haven't listed this on WP:RM, as I'd like to find out opinions here first. - jc37 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squid has a slightly more jocular attitude towards it, along with the idea of a many tentacled creature that at times looks unruly and ungainly, but when prompted into action, produces both a cloud of ink (article improvement), as well as high-speed motion (rapid improvement). Ronabop 05:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You've been touched by His Noodly Appendage, haven't you? --Victor falk 10:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Ramen Fosnez 11:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Pro - I like Squad better than Squadron. Away with you, foppish ron! Neil ム 17:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I do think that squadron sounds wrong somehow... slightly more milataristic than I like. Squad is better. Squid is actually cool for a number of reasons, but might seem a little too... trivialistic. Shame, really. SamBC(talk) 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
We still don't have a mascot... --Kizor 21:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
A squid for the squad? : ) - jc37 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Think about it. --Kizor 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Can't say I have a problem with the current name. Ichormosquito 12:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I also like the current name. Perhaps the militaristic tinge will encourage us to be slightly more organized, systematic and effective as members of a team rather than is typically the case at Wikipedia at we attempt article improvement. Also, Squadron implies sexy aircraft and airlift into the work zone while easily home for supper, shower and cozy bed in between work sessions. Squad has an unfortunate implication of isolated occupation teams stranded in the middle never ending hostilities of unknown parties with irreconcilable differences shooting at every useful citation or insight added to the ailing article with no end or evacuation in sight. Aim High! Lazyquasar 05:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move to Article Rescue Team

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move, per the discussion below. I don't feel comfortable closing a request I participated in, but this is overdue and the proposal wasn't supported by any of the commenters. Dekimasuよ! 11:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron → Wikipedia:Article Rescue Team — Military terminology might be exciting, but it's probably a bad idea in the broader picture —Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 20:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

This blog post has convinced me that military terminology might be bad. Does anyone have a problem with moving to "Article Rescue Team"? Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 20:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The blog you link to is a sad travesty completely misunderstanding the nature of an effective military. Any military that operates as it describes would frag itself long before it came within satellite vision or google mapping of any external enemy. Might be a better description of a corporate rat race environment but I am not sure, having left the corporate rat race after only a few years. For the anti military POV among us, consider the potential shock and awe of a squadron of forty or fifty people moving in on an article proposed for deletion who work cordially together and promptly split into effective volunteer teams. These volunteers have indicated that they are doing online research while those are hitting local libraries and these others are discussing formatting while that guy is taking notes from an online wikibook (while correcting typos and inserting questions raised elsewhere on applicable discussion pages) and another has asked for assistance from a Wikiversity reading club. She is looking for applicable online technical papers so I think I will review some of her sources and rate them as she has requested. Might be a good idea as policy to avoid voting on the articles for deletion pages. If necessary the material could be transwikied to a Wikiversity research project and then when a adequate grade article summarizing the results is available it can be transwikied (with appropriate credit given to the Wikiversity research team) back to Wikipedia. After all Wikiversity is not Wikipedia and has limited interest in hosting Encyclopedia articles. It is more interested in the educational processes, tools, etc. necessary to create them. Lazyquasar 06:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree in principle. Not sure about the specific suggestion, though. Don't have a better one right now either, mind. SamBC(talk) 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe: Article Rescue Project DGG (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Article Rescue Project is the best suggestion I have seen. --Orlady 04:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
ARG Article Rescue Group or...
TGTFA Them Goofs That Fix Articles ... it makes no difference. We do, what we do ... let them imagine us in camo if they need to, does their opinion matter (whoever they are)? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Rescue Project (or Article Rescue Wikiproject) would be a good name, IMHO. I'm not sure if this group is considered a Wikiproject, though. --Phirazo 17:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that we should consider being a wikiproject, cute names be damned (although I love ARG!) let's focus on improving articles and I think, help improve the AfD process to set up more checks and balances so that articles that are on notable, etc subjects aren't sent to AfD which, to me, drains the wp community of resources spent better elsewhere. I would support Article Rescue Wikiproject and this might solve the issue of separatng us from the template if that would be the project template. Benjiboi 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If it's the project template, that makes it even more firm that it be on the talk page, not the article page. SamBC(talk) 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between "this article is a part of blah-de-blah wikiproject" and a wikiproject relying on a set of maintenance templates. To me the rescue template is something (just like now) anyone uses on an AfD article; . If we formalize as a project we might also strongly advocate for other tags for notability, references, etc which are also mainpage tags that assist in articles needs being highlighted in hopes that other editors or experts can address them. Benjiboi 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines

There seem to be several possibilities - squad, team, project, various other rephrasings - so I wonder if this sort of binary "Should we move to X or not" is maybe not the best approach. It seems to be getting us bogged down in "But what about this idea?" Would it make more sense to do it in two phases: 1) list all the alternatives and tally the votes for them, then 2) for whichever gets the most votes, ask whether or not we want to move to that? (Or alternatively 1) do we want to move to something else, then 2) what should we move to?) --Zeborah 05:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Aw, let's just call the project Article Rescue Spaz Attack. And if there is anyone left who thinks that's still too paramilitary, we'll put a call in to the Wikipedia:Special Forces Attack & Destroy Commandos with lots of Testosterone to reason with them. ;-) -- llywrch 01:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Right-wing politics

--Phirazo 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, am I correct to still be placing the tags on the talk pages, or have we decided to go back to placing them on the main page? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I honestly believe that's where the tag belongs and so that's where i put it, if another editor places or moves to talk page then so be it until this project's name, status and implications for the tag are resolved. Benjiboi 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reply! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a consensus for where the tag goes for the time being. --Phirazo 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then I'll continue to go with the talk page as I did for Soviet war in Afghanistan in popular culture. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I put it on the article page because that's first landing for most people and most people don't do talk pages. If it's on the talk page, how do those "most people" know to "rescue" the article? Also, did I miss the consensus that rescue can only be put on AFD articles? I dont have a problem with that since there is Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit but I wasn't sure about a consensus on the issue. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I did find a bunch of reliable sources for the Afghanistan article, which I recently added and I made a couple improvements to the Saab article, so hopefully these efforts will help rescue these article. Also, we successfully rescued an article!  :) So, I removed the rescue tag from that article's talk page. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought the idea was that articles not up for deletion can just have the regular array of clean-up tags (which Right-wing politics has now), and articles that may get deleted get a {{rescue}} tag for more immediate clean-up. Right-wing politics isn't going to get deleted, no matter how bad it is, so there is no rush to improve it. WP:CLEANUP says there are 27,295 articles with clean-up tags, and I think {{rescue}} is only useful if it is on articles that are going through AfD. On an unrelated note, congrats for saving Assassinations in fiction, and bucking the recent "X in popular culture articles have to go" trend. --Phirazo 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

I think this one has been rescued already, but could people stick their heads in and double-check? Thanks.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In particular, more RSs would be a good thing.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added the rescue tag and done some other work; Afd is now leaning toward keep; numerous refs in Afd discussion; if someone has the energy simply sourcing then to the talk page would be helpful. Benjiboi 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Update. Rescued. Benjiboi 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with multiple marriages

Anyone have an opinion either way on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with multiple marriages? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say delete, but quite liked it once I got there. As I said in my !vote on the AfD, I think the cutoff should be raised to 6+ marriages, and I suspect more citations showing that the people are notable because of their multiple marriages would probably help too. I should have some time for that this weekend. --Zeborah 11:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
See my comment at afd: [3]--victor falk 12:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on user:Fosnez's post-TFD question

Resolved

Hi, Fosnez,

I thought I'd reply on template issues here. I have two comments.

In a way, what I wouldn't mind is some discussion on Talk:AFD about an update to the template, that would take a flag "improve=1", which would add the text to the AFD notice "An editor believes this topic is valid but poorly described. If you are able to improve it please do so." I don't know if WT:AFD would buy it, but it could make enough sense to maybe discuss and seek views upon.

As for the actual template you're working on, can I suggest a rough draft something like this:

The Article Squad

Attention! This topic might be poorly written rather than unencyclopedic.

Deletion policy aims for improvement, for genuinely notable and encyclopedic topics. If you think this article could be improved to pass AFD, please consider researching the topic, and adding high quality verifiable content and citations so it gets the best chance.

I'm not saying this is "the best way to say it", and it might even be exactly what you don't wan..., but it might give ideas. It's the best I can think of on the spot. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FT2 must have been using mind control on me, because I had the same thought while reading about the template being deleted. However, my take on it is a little different: there would be two values, one to flag the article for attention from the ARS, & the other for the username of an editor who will make it an immediate priority to rescue. Hopefully if an editor adopts an article to rescue, no Admin will prematurely close the AfD citing WP:SNOW; on the other hand, if an editor abuses these flags, & either tags articles that the editor never works on or tags articles that clearly are not salvagable, then the editor could be penalized for creating a disruption.
In any case, the idea is to alert interested editors that an article of potential notability needs to be rescued. How this is done -- a separate template, changes to the AfD template, or someone simply compiling a list by hand or bot -- isn't important. While people will object to this because "this can be abused", what needs to be pointed out is that every process, policy & tool in Wikipedia can be abused; we're just trying to offer a means that is not as acrimonious as many DRV debates have been. -- llywrch 19:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
One way round that might be {{Rescue | [Names of certifying editors] }}

The Article Squad

Attention! This topic might be poorly written rather than unencyclopedic.

Deletion policy aims for improvement, for genuinely notable and encyclopedic topics, but deletion is usually appropriate so long as articles lack viable content of reasonable quality. If you think this substandard article could be improved to pass AFD, please consider researching the topic, and adding high quality verifiable content and citations so it gets the best chance.

Certified by: sample user #1, sample user #2.

The point being that anyone who agreed, can add their name to the template. You can then gauge seriousness by looking at the names list. If it's certified by people whose input you don't take seriously, for example debate trolls,... or just by the creator and his sidekick... or people from the Squad who always use the tag responsibly... or by 3 respected AFD 'well known editors' whose opinions you usually respect... etc. This would cause the "abuse" problem to be self fixing, because each editor can quickly assess the credibility as they see it of the tag. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well that smells like vote stacking. Benjiboi 13:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. Shouldn't be. I'm thinking about it as an experienced AFD closer, I think it'd probably be okay. It's not hyping up the issue, and its noting both sides of policy. I think it's probably safe. Deletion policy is pretty clear about the difference between "encyclopedic but bad article - improve it" and "unencyclopedic - delete it". As someone who's just closed the TFD with requirements for compliance and an eye to usage, it seems fair to give some pointers and input on those issues. What'd help is if you could explain more, the stacking concern you'd have? FT2 (Talk | email) 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, Deletion policy and AfD realities are two different things. Before an article is even considered for AfD it's to be improved with regular editing and if it can be improved then it's not a good candidate for AfD. Ignoring that policy has kept this group pretty busy as many of the articles we've looked at were certainly improved. Regardless, even if the spirit of certified editors was completely neutral I bet that plenty of folks would not see it that way. I also want to roll back all the complexity of all this - part of the beauty was the simplicity of a simply article tag that was added when needed then removed when it wasn't. I'm generally opposed to layers of process all of which serves to keep us from editing. If it's not simple to understand and execute then I don't think it will work. Every step of our eventual processes need to be simple and clean whether we have 50 or 5000 folks helping. Benjiboi 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a matter for the folks on this page; my input is to help them, if they so decide, to decide with some outside input. But as for AFD reality, I like to practice what policy recommends. My own experience of this is that indeed, if I come across an AFD which is perhaps encyclopedic but poor standard, I will specifically improve it during AFD. Homosexual recruitment was one such, so (it turned out) was the borderline-notable medical researcher I myself nominated for deletion, Kevin Eggan. There iwll regularly be some articles that can be fixed rather than deleted, and should be. Whether this is a project that will help I don't know, but it's certainly a sensible agenda (unlike some). I don't know that despairing of people's willingness to help in practice, is a good basis for declining to make them aware they could help..... FT2 (Talk | email) 16:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd love to have something like the second version, maybe simplified--let me think about a version. I wish there were some way for a person to say, I've looked at this, and I like it. I like it signed--assuming it goes on the article talk page, of course--Obviously those who disagree with my standards will want to ignore my approval & it should be plain flat-out from the first that its a personal view. Consider something the reverse of {{prod2}} for format. What i do now is simply make an edit and leave a summary saying something like "some spam removed since the topic is notable, more to go." or "Reference added to demonstrate notability--additional ones would help"DGG (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Allen Mukes

Resolved

As of 10:21 AM on Sunday, 11 November 2007, the article still has the rescue tag, even though the article successfully passed its AfD as "keep". As I have been away for a few days, I wasn't sure if we're leaving the tags up even post AfD. If we aren't, then we should probably remove the rescue tag. In any event congratulations on a job well done with that article! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Article kept, tag removed. Benjiboi 06:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OS-tan

Resolved

Well established article (created in 2004, and cited by the media) up for deletion due to lack of sources. I'll see what I can dig up, but help would be appreciated. There have to be at least a few "Japan is weird" sources we can use for this. --Phirazo 03:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Rescued.--Sasawatcan talk and Edit 15:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional devices in Futurama

Resolved

I placed a tag on this article, which another editor keeps removing. I believe the tag was placed in good faith, but I offer it up to other members of our project to consider whether the removal of the tag is justified. Please see this history. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view, Le Grand is abusing this project. He places the tag on just about every article in AFD that he comments in. Deletion debates aren't votes, but he is trying to vote stack them by using the rescue tag.RobJ1981 (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
He is not the only one defending the article in question, so I do not see how this can be either idiosyncratic or unreasonable, let alone abusive. (And I do not see him commenting on all that many articles, so I cannot see how it is abusive in general.) It is always acceptable to improve an article during an AfD. Are you attempting to discourage it? If you disagree on the merits of the article, the AfD is the place to discuss it--I should mention I have no opinion on that, having no knowledge or interest in the subject. DGG (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this organization would be greatly served by directing itself toward saving articles in the proper way, building them up with reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines, not attempting to filibuster AFD's with rafts of uninformed keep votes with reasons in no way related to either the nominator concerns or wikipedia policy. Please cease exploiting this noble venture to save random articles and save ones with real potential to become good articles if given half a chance. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Hair Day

Resolved

This article was created by a well meaning but rather misguided new editor. Could the squadron help out? The more I read about these hair irons the more I feel like there ought to be good sources out there but the only ones I can find are either trivial or unreliable like user contributed reviews. Basically this user and the article needs attention from someone who knows where to look for reviews in trade magazines etc. where non-trivial coverage by reliable sources is more likely to be found. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Article has been sourced to the roots. Benjiboi 05:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Vampire (Buffyverse)

Resolved

The Buffyverse is the subject of academic studies. Though I'm not personally familiar enough with the subject (I've never even watched an episode), I'm pretty sure that these studies must contain extensive discussion on vampires. Surely someone more familiar with the subject can rescue this article? DHowell 03:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Update. The vampire is saved! Benjiboi 05:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fingerskate

Resolved

Remember fingerboards, the miniature skateboards you controlled with your fingers? Well, the article about them is up for deletion, which should be a perfectly notable topic (Google Scholar hits include a patent for fingerboards), but I need your help.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

article has been around for a while, seems worthy enough please add references. Benjiboi 02:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Saved. Benjiboi 03:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_3&oldid=1190112322"