Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:15, 30 August 2012

Article Rescue Squadron

This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Misplaced Pages articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron

faq page Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Article help Q: Can the Article rescue squadron (ARS) save my article from deletion? A: Not exactly. First off, Misplaced Pages is a 💕 and articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article. Secondly, if an article meets Misplaced Pages's policies on notability and reliable sourcing it likely will not be deleted. There are also alternatives to deletion which may be appropriate. The project members will do what they can as time allows. We suggest that you reference Tips to help rescue articles and the Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles Q: Will ARS help fix the rest of article problems after the deletion discussion? A: In theory, No. Often, however, individual members will assist after the discussion has closed. You may want to contact a related WikiProject to see if someone there can assist. Sometimes project members completely overhaul an article but in practice most changes are incremental, and you should take initiative to add sourcing and improve the article yourself. Many times other editors will post sources to the deletion discussion; if they meet our sourcing standards then feel free to apply them to the article. Scope Q: Does ARS work to rescue other content on Misplaced Pages (other than articles)? A: While articles remain our main focus, poorly-formed encyclopedia content can be found in other namespaces. If content up for deletion, such as a template or image, is poorly-formed and you feel it can be fixed, go ahead and add it to the Rescue list, to request the ARS' consideration. Please be aware that unlike articles, templates and categories often change and are renamed to serve our readers. Q: Does ARS contribute to guideline and policy discussions? A: Similar to articles, policies and content are not exclusively controlled by any individual(s). If you think ARS should know about a policy discussion you can post a neutral notification, such as, "There is a discussion about topic at _____." on the ARS Talk page. Avoid even the appearance of telling anyone how to think or vote in the discussion— it's very important to keep the message neutral when inviting people to participate. See WP:Canvassing for clarification regarding appropriate discussion notifications. Q: What if I object to what the ARS is doing? A: ARS is no different from any of the hundreds of Wikiprojects in that we collaborate to improve Misplaced Pages. We are a maintenance Wikiproject, and as such our scope is not subject-focused (like a WikiProject focused on a specific sport, country or profession), as much as policy-focused to determine if content adheres to Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and notability. We try to determine if an article meets Misplaced Pages's notability guidleines as well as is it verifiable to reliable sources. We're also apt to suggest merging, listifying, redirecting and deleting as appropriate. Notifying the Article Rescue Squadron is essentially a means to request assistance with an article or content that one feels meets notability guidelines, or should be retained for other reasons. The goal is to improve articles and other content, to benefit our readers. All are welcome to help ARS improve the encyclopedia, just as at any of the other WikiProjects, which encompass a variety of views and interests. No canvassing Q: Does this project canvass editors to keep articles? A: No. The goal of the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is to clean up content that would otherwise be deleted. By necessity, this involves examining the deletion discussion to see what the problems with the article are, and then remedying them. If done correctly, this article cleanup improves the encyclopedia. If an article nominated for deletion is improved and retained on Misplaced Pages by this process, vis-à-vis addressing a nominator's concerns, the nominator hasn't "lost". Rather, the encyclopedia has won. Using this talk page Q:What about identifying and pointing out specific users who are nominating a lot of articles for deletion without apparent due cause? This talk page is for co-ordinating matters related to this project's purpose, which is rescuing content on notable topics from deletion. This is not a forum for dispute resolution. If there are issues with an individual user, talk to them personally or make a report or request at an appropriate noticeboard.

Article Rescue Squadron

This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Misplaced Pages articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron

faq page Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Article help Q: Can the Article rescue squadron (ARS) save my article from deletion? A: Not exactly. First off, Misplaced Pages is a 💕 and articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article. Secondly, if an article meets Misplaced Pages's policies on notability and reliable sourcing it likely will not be deleted. There are also alternatives to deletion which may be appropriate. The project members will do what they can as time allows. We suggest that you reference Tips to help rescue articles and the Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles Q: Will ARS help fix the rest of article problems after the deletion discussion? A: In theory, No. Often, however, individual members will assist after the discussion has closed. You may want to contact a related WikiProject to see if someone there can assist. Sometimes project members completely overhaul an article but in practice most changes are incremental, and you should take initiative to add sourcing and improve the article yourself. Many times other editors will post sources to the deletion discussion; if they meet our sourcing standards then feel free to apply them to the article. Scope Q: Does ARS work to rescue other content on Misplaced Pages (other than articles)? A: While articles remain our main focus, poorly-formed encyclopedia content can be found in other namespaces. If content up for deletion, such as a template or image, is poorly-formed and you feel it can be fixed, go ahead and add it to the Rescue list, to request the ARS' consideration. Please be aware that unlike articles, templates and categories often change and are renamed to serve our readers. Q: Does ARS contribute to guideline and policy discussions? A: Similar to articles, policies and content are not exclusively controlled by any individual(s). If you think ARS should know about a policy discussion you can post a neutral notification, such as, "There is a discussion about topic at _____." on the ARS Talk page. Avoid even the appearance of telling anyone how to think or vote in the discussion— it's very important to keep the message neutral when inviting people to participate. See WP:Canvassing for clarification regarding appropriate discussion notifications. Q: What if I object to what the ARS is doing? A: ARS is no different from any of the hundreds of Wikiprojects in that we collaborate to improve Misplaced Pages. We are a maintenance Wikiproject, and as such our scope is not subject-focused (like a WikiProject focused on a specific sport, country or profession), as much as policy-focused to determine if content adheres to Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and notability. We try to determine if an article meets Misplaced Pages's notability guidleines as well as is it verifiable to reliable sources. We're also apt to suggest merging, listifying, redirecting and deleting as appropriate. Notifying the Article Rescue Squadron is essentially a means to request assistance with an article or content that one feels meets notability guidelines, or should be retained for other reasons. The goal is to improve articles and other content, to benefit our readers. All are welcome to help ARS improve the encyclopedia, just as at any of the other WikiProjects, which encompass a variety of views and interests. No canvassing Q: Does this project canvass editors to keep articles? A: No. The goal of the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is to clean up content that would otherwise be deleted. By necessity, this involves examining the deletion discussion to see what the problems with the article are, and then remedying them. If done correctly, this article cleanup improves the encyclopedia. If an article nominated for deletion is improved and retained on Misplaced Pages by this process, vis-à-vis addressing a nominator's concerns, the nominator hasn't "lost". Rather, the encyclopedia has won. Using this talk page Q:What about identifying and pointing out specific users who are nominating a lot of articles for deletion without apparent due cause? This talk page is for co-ordinating matters related to this project's purpose, which is rescuing content on notable topics from deletion. This is not a forum for dispute resolution. If there are issues with an individual user, talk to them personally or make a report or request at an appropriate noticeboard.

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Header

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Credo Reference (sign-up) HighBeam Research (sign-up) Questia Online Library (sign-up) JSTOR (sign-up)

See Misplaced Pages:Questia#Apply_here:_Round_1 and at the top it links to the other ones as well. Useful research and referencing tools available now. Dream Focus 02:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Rescue list instructions at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

To prevent future posts on the Rescue list that may be vague, perhaps clarification is necessary on the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion page, where it states (verbatim, as of this post):

—Northamerica1000 17:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe also add some short comment below <!-- PLEASE POST NEW ENTRIES HERE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST, DIRECTLY BELOW THIS NOTICE. BEGIN ENTRIES WITH A === === HEADER !!! --> might be an idea? Often people don't notice or read the instructions at the top of a noticeboard, project page etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• When was that added to the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion ? I'm very surprised to find it there. Dream Focus 22:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It was added (by another user) to replace information regarding the (now nonexistent) rescue template. Northamerica1000 23:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

When was the last time an article listed at Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list was actually significantly improved by a member of the squadron? (Beyond simple tidy ups etc) IRWolfie- (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It happens when there is something that can be added. In the recent article you are referring to, I read through the information and added to the article to clarify what the person actually said, but saw nothing else I could add to it. I then went and commented in the AFD after that. There are times when a short stub is expanded into a full article by members of the ARS. Dream Focus 13:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

that is my question, when is the last time that occurred. I've been watching the list for a while and I've not seen it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Grabbing a recently saved one from the list, you can look through the history and see all the edits made after it was tagged for Rescue. Go through older entries and look around if you want to find more. You can seek out the information yourself if you don't believe me, I see no reason to waste time proving it to you by making a long list of examples. Dream Focus 14:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are the specific changes in that case: . Seems like mostly just a tidy up; is the squadron just for tidying up articles? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A poor example, and a poor article. See Milowent's comments below for some better ones. pablo 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• An actual rescue does happen from time to time, rewrite, valid references from reliable sources added etc. But mainly not; depends on the users who spot it. Some are diligent and thorough and understand what they are doing, others are happy to be part of a votefarm. pablo 15:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Which regular member of the ARS do you see acting as part of a "votefarm"? Which don't regularly add content to articles, not just those nominated for deletion, but others? Dream Focus 17:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not the question I was answering. Milowent (for example) has many "rescues" to his credit. Other self-proclaimed "rescuers" do not. pablo 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wolfie probably doesn't notice that many times the Rescue squadron politely hints than an article is not worth saving, and it gets deleted. If that doesn't help an editor to realize an article has no chance, and to accept it better, i don't know what else does. There have been a number of those lately. I've been mostly writing/improving non-AfD articles lately. The last rescue I did that was listed on ARS (as opposed to ones I do myself and don't bother listing) was Kirby Bliss Blanton, which was kept of course. I also worked on I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! which was only a prod, albeit a pathetic one. Also handled Deford, Michigan.--Milowent • 17:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• IRWolfie, I try to check in here as an outsider (skeptical-in-practice/supportive-in-principle) now and then. There was an RFC on this. The consensus was that "ARS is used for canvassing, but not frequently", "Any problem lies with a small number of members, not the group as a whole", and "The project is designed to improve articles, not participate in AfDs, and members who forget this should be reminded". If you think there's a problem with an individual member in an individual rescue request, the first step would be to leave a comment on their user page. I would expect complete civility in response, and if you didn't get it, then you should start building a case against that individual editor. But as far as I'm concerned, criticizing the whole system of article rescue is counter productive and baseless at this moment in time. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I completely rewrote the article busy work two days ago. When was the last time that User:IRWolfie- did some fact checking? His comments here seem to provoked by this AFD. In that case, I browsed around and found a relevant article which should help the discussion along, being quite similar in content and providing many leads. User:IRWolfie- claimed that this "has little bearing on this article" which seems to be an outrageous falsehood. Tsk. Warden (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• One of the most pleasant rescue operations this year was the risk of ruin AfD. The Colonel and Dream intervened with typically spot on analyses, and a few hours later the nominator withdrew, closing the discussion as a unanimous keep. In the closing statement he singled out the impossibly cool Dream Focus to thank him for his contribution.

Sadly Deletionists are not always so receptive to reason. In this AfD for example, good Laura Hale made by far and away the most impressive evidence based case for keep that Ive ever seen - you'd need to expand the hats to see her massive and well presented tables analysing the coverage in reliable sources - but all she got for her herculean labours was mockery.

Often no amount of quality sources will appease delete voters, they remain determined to destroy, presumably as they worry elite professors will consider their target embarrassing. For this and other reasons, voting keep without taking the time to add sources has historically been the most efficient way to maximise the number of articles one rescues. Sadly it looks like that is a thing of the past, the Squad's glory days seem to be over. These days the only safe way for individuals to avoid attack is to only participate in a small number of AfDs each month. On the bright side, other more powerful forces for inclusion and reason will emerge in time, and the Squad's legacy will last for as long as there is an internet. Huh, in the eternal realm, as with all that is wrought with Love, the Squad's work will endure for ever. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the Risk of ruin article: I added several sources to it, and an inline citation. Diffs: , , , , in addition to other edits to improve the layout and prose of the article. After all, topic notability is inherent upon coverage in reliable sources. Also, I did not !vote at the article's AfD discussion. I've also done significant work on the Busy work article, some prior to the article being listed on this project's rescue list, and some after. When was the last time this WikiProject received accolades for working to retain an article nominated for deletion about a topic that is actually notable? Northamerica1000 02:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't vote in the AfD, and you did improve the article, but neither warden nor dream edited the article and just voted. This seems consistent with ARS being used as a canvassing tool. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wolfie, Dream did in fact make a minor formatting improvement, but you’re basically correct. It was his comment in the AfD that seemned to most directly lead to the unaminous keep. North on the other hand was like a model rescuer, at least going by the definition our "neautral" crtitics seem to hold. Still, its undeniable that their efforts had no effect on the outcome of that particular AfD, as it was closed several hours before their first improvement.

North, I did think of you after writing that comment, more due to the second half of my post, as I thought it might seem wrong to be so downbeat considering we've been blessed with such inspirational recent arrivals as your good self. I guess one needs to have experienced how good we had it back in 2008 and 2009 to appreciate why it feels like we've fallen from grace.

As your currently one of our most active editors you're probably best place to answer your own question, but I'd guess it might have been months since the Squad's work has been suitably recognised. Back in the day, we received accolades left right and centre, and were hailed as heros in national newspapers, in constrast to the criticisms journalists had for deletionists Its like the old coldplay song We used to role the dice, see the fear in our enemies eyes. Listen as the crowds would cry, Le vieux roi est mort. Viva Le Grand Roi! Now deletionist hordes wait, for our heads on a silver plate. It might seem ridiculous to think anyone would fear the rescue squad, as we're one of the least vindictive and intolerant groups you'd ever find. But they did. Even thumperward, not an editor given to flights of fancy, once suggested an admin should think twice before messing with us, due to what had happened to our former arch critic, A Man In Black. It started to go pear in early 2010, deletionists began rampaging through our BLPs, mass deleting thousands. Several high profile squad members opposed this, but Jimbo weighed in for the deletionists. In April of that year, Sue Gardner came to a London meetup, so I thought Id attend to see if the Foundation would be able to help the Squad perform its vital work. You couldn’t hope for a more inclusive, friendly and pleasant person than Sue, she'd make the perfect Squad member, but she said the Foundation couldnt intervene in content issues for legal reasons. An even more shocking incident occurred when we came to do formal introductions. I proudly announced "My name is Feyd, and Im here to represent the mighty Article Resuce Squad." I was using a slightly theatrical tone of voice as I obviously expected spontaneous applause, maybe even an awed gasp from one of the females present. Instead, everyone booed with the sole exception of Sue herself, and several, including an Arbirtrator, cracked jokes about me being an arse! Such a humbling experience; Id assumed the Squad was highly regarded by all but the vocal minority of deletionists. Things kept getting worse. The next month, the rescue titan Anobody was perma banned after being stabbed in the back on ANI by a former Squad member. A few months on, and our defacto leader Benji was also banned. The unstoppable MQS started to work more on movies and less on rescues. DGG is now rarely seen in our areas. The master strategist Ikip seems to have left Misplaced Pages completely. There's been a rumour he's now helping FlyingToaster to ensure Obama is re-elected, so perhaps thats a good thing.

I could go on and on, but I hope this gives an indication of how far the Squad has fallen since its glory days, and why even though we still have a good few excellent members, its hard to be optimistic about the Squads future. But please dont think your phenomenal work isnt appreciated. Huh, talking of accolades, its a shame you dont store all your barnstars on one page. Even though you've only been here a year, I've a feeling you might be the most decorated wikipedian ever! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the examples you give are the opposite of what the ARS should be doing. It should not be a tool for keep voters to organise to vote at AfDs. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly not all active members share your perspective on what we should be doing. Though sadly youre probably right, in the sense that if we want to avoid attack, we should minimise the number of times we vote without making substantial improvements. Perhaps it would be safer still to follow North's example. Though not everyone has the saint like forbearance to spend hours researching and improving an article, while knowing theres only a tiny chance deletionists will be impressed enough to change their minds. It just seems so asymmetric! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Credo Reference (sign-up) HighBeam Research (sign-up) Questia Online Library (sign-up) JSTOR (sign-up)

See Misplaced Pages:Questia#Apply_here:_Round_1 and at the top it links to the other ones as well. Useful research and referencing tools available now. Dream Focus 02:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Rescue list instructions at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

To prevent future posts on the Rescue list that may be vague, perhaps clarification is necessary on the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion page, where it states (verbatim, as of this post):

—Northamerica1000 17:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe also add some short comment below <!-- PLEASE POST NEW ENTRIES HERE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST, DIRECTLY BELOW THIS NOTICE. BEGIN ENTRIES WITH A === === HEADER !!! --> might be an idea? Often people don't notice or read the instructions at the top of a noticeboard, project page etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• When was that added to the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion ? I'm very surprised to find it there. Dream Focus 22:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It was added (by another user) to replace information regarding the (now nonexistent) rescue template. Northamerica1000 23:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

When was the last time an article listed at Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list was actually significantly improved by a member of the squadron? (Beyond simple tidy ups etc) IRWolfie- (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It happens when there is something that can be added. In the recent article you are referring to, I read through the information and added to the article to clarify what the person actually said, but saw nothing else I could add to it. I then went and commented in the AFD after that. There are times when a short stub is expanded into a full article by members of the ARS. Dream Focus 13:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

that is my question, when is the last time that occurred. I've been watching the list for a while and I've not seen it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Grabbing a recently saved one from the list, you can look through the history and see all the edits made after it was tagged for Rescue. Go through older entries and look around if you want to find more. You can seek out the information yourself if you don't believe me, I see no reason to waste time proving it to you by making a long list of examples. Dream Focus 14:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are the specific changes in that case: . Seems like mostly just a tidy up; is the squadron just for tidying up articles? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A poor example, and a poor article. See Milowent's comments below for some better ones. pablo 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• An actual rescue does happen from time to time, rewrite, valid references from reliable sources added etc. But mainly not; depends on the users who spot it. Some are diligent and thorough and understand what they are doing, others are happy to be part of a votefarm. pablo 15:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Which regular member of the ARS do you see acting as part of a "votefarm"? Which don't regularly add content to articles, not just those nominated for deletion, but others? Dream Focus 17:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not the question I was answering. Milowent (for example) has many "rescues" to his credit. Other self-proclaimed "rescuers" do not. pablo 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wolfie probably doesn't notice that many times the Rescue squadron politely hints than an article is not worth saving, and it gets deleted. If that doesn't help an editor to realize an article has no chance, and to accept it better, i don't know what else does. There have been a number of those lately. I've been mostly writing/improving non-AfD articles lately. The last rescue I did that was listed on ARS (as opposed to ones I do myself and don't bother listing) was Kirby Bliss Blanton, which was kept of course. I also worked on I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! which was only a prod, albeit a pathetic one. Also handled Deford, Michigan.--Milowent • 17:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• IRWolfie, I try to check in here as an outsider (skeptical-in-practice/supportive-in-principle) now and then. There was an RFC on this. The consensus was that "ARS is used for canvassing, but not frequently", "Any problem lies with a small number of members, not the group as a whole", and "The project is designed to improve articles, not participate in AfDs, and members who forget this should be reminded". If you think there's a problem with an individual member in an individual rescue request, the first step would be to leave a comment on their user page. I would expect complete civility in response, and if you didn't get it, then you should start building a case against that individual editor. But as far as I'm concerned, criticizing the whole system of article rescue is counter productive and baseless at this moment in time. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I completely rewrote the article busy work two days ago. When was the last time that User:IRWolfie- did some fact checking? His comments here seem to provoked by this AFD. In that case, I browsed around and found a relevant article which should help the discussion along, being quite similar in content and providing many leads. User:IRWolfie- claimed that this "has little bearing on this article" which seems to be an outrageous falsehood. Tsk. Warden (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• One of the most pleasant rescue operations this year was the risk of ruin AfD. The Colonel and Dream intervened with typically spot on analyses, and a few hours later the nominator withdrew, closing the discussion as a unanimous keep. In the closing statement he singled out the impossibly cool Dream Focus to thank him for his contribution.

Sadly Deletionists are not always so receptive to reason. In this AfD for example, good Laura Hale made by far and away the most impressive evidence based case for keep that Ive ever seen - you'd need to expand the hats to see her massive and well presented tables analysing the coverage in reliable sources - but all she got for her herculean labours was mockery.

Often no amount of quality sources will appease delete voters, they remain determined to destroy, presumably as they worry elite professors will consider their target embarrassing. For this and other reasons, voting keep without taking the time to add sources has historically been the most efficient way to maximise the number of articles one rescues. Sadly it looks like that is a thing of the past, the Squad's glory days seem to be over. These days the only safe way for individuals to avoid attack is to only participate in a small number of AfDs each month. On the bright side, other more powerful forces for inclusion and reason will emerge in time, and the Squad's legacy will last for as long as there is an internet. Huh, in the eternal realm, as with all that is wrought with Love, the Squad's work will endure for ever. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the Risk of ruin article: I added several sources to it, and an inline citation. Diffs: , , , , in addition to other edits to improve the layout and prose of the article. After all, topic notability is inherent upon coverage in reliable sources. Also, I did not !vote at the article's AfD discussion. I've also done significant work on the Busy work article, some prior to the article being listed on this project's rescue list, and some after. When was the last time this WikiProject received accolades for working to retain an article nominated for deletion about a topic that is actually notable? Northamerica1000 02:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't vote in the AfD, and you did improve the article, but neither warden nor dream edited the article and just voted. This seems consistent with ARS being used as a canvassing tool. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wolfie, Dream did in fact make a minor formatting improvement, but you’re basically correct. It was his comment in the AfD that seemned to most directly lead to the unaminous keep. North on the other hand was like a model rescuer, at least going by the definition our "neautral" crtitics seem to hold. Still, its undeniable that their efforts had no effect on the outcome of that particular AfD, as it was closed several hours before their first improvement.

North, I did think of you after writing that comment, more due to the second half of my post, as I thought it might seem wrong to be so downbeat considering we've been blessed with such inspirational recent arrivals as your good self. I guess one needs to have experienced how good we had it back in 2008 and 2009 to appreciate why it feels like we've fallen from grace.

As your currently one of our most active editors you're probably best place to answer your own question, but I'd guess it might have been months since the Squad's work has been suitably recognised. Back in the day, we received accolades left right and centre, and were hailed as heros in national newspapers, in constrast to the criticisms journalists had for deletionists Its like the old coldplay song We used to role the dice, see the fear in our enemies eyes. Listen as the crowds would cry, Le vieux roi est mort. Viva Le Grand Roi! Now deletionist hordes wait, for our heads on a silver plate. It might seem ridiculous to think anyone would fear the rescue squad, as we're one of the least vindictive and intolerant groups you'd ever find. But they did. Even thumperward, not an editor given to flights of fancy, once suggested an admin should think twice before messing with us, due to what had happened to our former arch critic, A Man In Black. It started to go pear in early 2010, deletionists began rampaging through our BLPs, mass deleting thousands. Several high profile squad members opposed this, but Jimbo weighed in for the deletionists. In April of that year, Sue Gardner came to a London meetup, so I thought Id attend to see if the Foundation would be able to help the Squad perform its vital work. You couldn’t hope for a more inclusive, friendly and pleasant person than Sue, she'd make the perfect Squad member, but she said the Foundation couldnt intervene in content issues for legal reasons. An even more shocking incident occurred when we came to do formal introductions. I proudly announced "My name is Feyd, and Im here to represent the mighty Article Resuce Squad." I was using a slightly theatrical tone of voice as I obviously expected spontaneous applause, maybe even an awed gasp from one of the females present. Instead, everyone booed with the sole exception of Sue herself, and several, including an Arbirtrator, cracked jokes about me being an arse! Such a humbling experience; Id assumed the Squad was highly regarded by all but the vocal minority of deletionists. Things kept getting worse. The next month, the rescue titan Anobody was perma banned after being stabbed in the back on ANI by a former Squad member. A few months on, and our defacto leader Benji was also banned. The unstoppable MQS started to work more on movies and less on rescues. DGG is now rarely seen in our areas. The master strategist Ikip seems to have left Misplaced Pages completely. There's been a rumour he's now helping FlyingToaster to ensure Obama is re-elected, so perhaps thats a good thing.

I could go on and on, but I hope this gives an indication of how far the Squad has fallen since its glory days, and why even though we still have a good few excellent members, its hard to be optimistic about the Squads future. But please dont think your phenomenal work isnt appreciated. Huh, talking of accolades, its a shame you dont store all your barnstars on one page. Even though you've only been here a year, I've a feeling you might be the most decorated wikipedian ever! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the examples you give are the opposite of what the ARS should be doing. It should not be a tool for keep voters to organise to vote at AfDs. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly not all active members share your perspective on what we should be doing. Though sadly youre probably right, in the sense that if we want to avoid attack, we should minimise the number of times we vote without making substantial improvements. Perhaps it would be safer still to follow North's example. Though not everyone has the saint like forbearance to spend hours researching and improving an article, while knowing theres only a tiny chance deletionists will be impressed enough to change their minds. It just seems so asymmetric! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron