To view the response to a question, click the [show] 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, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article. Secondly, if an article meets Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and notability. We try to determine if an article meets Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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.
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 Wikipedia articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron
This article has great references and is one of the biggest music licensing and stock footage companies in the world. In addition, they are an Israeli startup. I think the article is being attacked in AFD and would like some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.153.142.52 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only just saw the sad news and came here to share but find that GreenC has taken care of it. I met David when he came to London for the Wikimania in 2014 and was impressed by his enthusiasm and good nature. He gave me one of his trademark Wikipedia Editor caps which I wore to many editathons but it went astray at a WikiData event in Cambridge and so I need a replacement. Perhaps we should get some ARS merchandise made now? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might for talk pages, but the rescue list is a project page and hence my warning that my action bar suddenly had "Subscribe" instead of "Unsubscribe" when I navigated to it this morning. Raladic (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and actually, I can see that I am still subscribed to the page that is now a redirect at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list - so yeah I don't quite know what happened there, but I think it might be that project page subscriptions don't move over in a page move but are hard linked to the page title? Raladic (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These 12 pages were culled from yesterday's unassessed AFC backlog; from the moment of this writing, they may not be long for Wikipedia in the next how many weeks unless some action is taken. After I spent countless days grading hundreds and hundreds of articles in an ambitious, thankless one-man task--a few of which were never attended to since the early 2010s--it's time we finally discussed their chances for a change before it's too soon.
At press time, two in the backlog--Nathaniel Jenkins and Prateek Raj, both BLPs--are under scrutiny at AFD; no further comments on those. Anyway, on with the chaff we found within the wheat--listed alphabetically. (All have been tagged for {{notability}} unless otherwise noted; tag dates, and source-hunting links, are provided next to their titles.)
As an eventualist/incrementalist, I may be a bit sorry if they end up delisted. But these topics, diverse as they may be, do matter to someone, somewhere. So as it stands, wishing those willing to save those topics good luck--and thanks to the AFC reviewers/participants alike for all your hard work. (Feel free to leave me talk-page feedback.)
Maybe it's time I, an AFC drafter myself, took brief breaks from WP as other off-site commitments compete for my time and attention. All that grading was already overwhelming to begin with...
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose, WP:CVU is a wikiproject without wikiproject in the name, and it doesn't need to be changed. Just because it's a wikiproject doesn't mean its name has to say it's one. TheWikipedetalk18:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNeutral - Given our general naming of WikiProjects with the prefix, makes sense for consistency. Given the long standing time at the previous title though, we probably do need to have the redirect so old links don't break. Raladic (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ammending my vote to neutral per the below opposes, which make sense, in line with the possible technical challenges that I aleady pointed out above. Raladic (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose. Typically, WikiProjects are focused on a topic area, rather than on a task. (I realize the Guild of Copyeditors is an exception.) This project has had such a long history under its present name, that it feels "off" to me to change it just for the sake of some sort of consistency. (Consistency is more important in mainspace, whereas project space isn't really more efficient if we insist on it everywhere.) However, I don't feel strongly about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not organized as a Wikiproject. WP:Wikiproject has been around since 2001 and ARS since 2007, and in 17 years of existence overlap, this wasn't previously enacted. Why might that be? Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was wondering the same thing. Our ARS page says "WikiProject" in various places, and is in the category. Some of that was done in the past couple years. I thought maybe this was a clever attempt to delete the project by putting it under WikiProject rules and regs, but actually it looks like deleting a WikiProject is not commonly done. Stale and abandoned projects are supposedly kept around. Possibly a WikiProject would give it more protection, possibly not. WikiProjects I don't know much about. -- GreenC23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, that was the view of a single editor, and the edits were not so conspicuous that others would necessarily see them as needing reversion. Editors can have different opinions now, more than a decade later, without being bound by the opinion of that one editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not a group of like minded editors. It's more like a noticeboard to bring attention to certain cases, with noticeboard members independently making their own decisions. The people who participate here run the gamit from inclusionists to deletionists. -- GreenC00:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always? I checked the history, I could be missing something but it seems like only recently the wording "Project" was added, and not sure under what consensus even that was done. Why in so many years has no one ever brought it into Project namespace until now? And it's being done via this RM and not a general discussion. It's never been discussed before. Seems odd. -- GreenC21:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a long time "member" I have concerns, per my comments above. If other members want to do it, let's all agree and just do it, no RM required. Otherwise it feels forced. -- GreenC21:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proposed name is both boring and esoteric when compared to the current one. Names are important, and this is an excellent one, and well chosen by the participants. To impose a different name on them has justification neither in policy nor in improving Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above argument presented by Andrew Davidson. I see no benefit to this proposal, and if anything will likely cause the technical issues as seen previously. Not broke, don't fix. ResonantDistortion09:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
