Mike Cline (talk | contribs) →See also: moved to correct list |
FeydHuxtable (talk | contribs) →Instructions: remove part of instructions very few seem to follow, per talk |
||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
If you are the main editor of the article tagged for deletion, or are unsure if an article is a good candidate for the Article Rescue Squadron, then please [[Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron|post a message]] including the article's title on [[Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron|the Article Rescue Squadron talk page]]. |
If you are the main editor of the article tagged for deletion, or are unsure if an article is a good candidate for the Article Rescue Squadron, then please [[Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron|post a message]] including the article's title on [[Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron|the Article Rescue Squadron talk page]]. |
||
'''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.''''' Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and likely benefits our readers. |
|||
You can also add the template [[Template:Afdrescue|<nowiki>{{subst:Afdrescue}}</nowiki>]] to the deletion discussion, to let other editors know that this item was tagged for rescue. This produces output similar to the following: |
You can also add the template [[Template:Afdrescue|<nowiki>{{subst:Afdrescue}}</nowiki>]] to the deletion discussion, to let other editors know that this item was tagged for rescue. This produces output similar to the following: |
Revision as of 19:32, 22 July 2010
- To see the articles listed for rescue click here. To add an article to the list, see the instructions.
Notice: The Article Rescue Squad is always in need of additional help; All are welcome to try their hand at saving articles tagged for rescue! |
Please join us! All too often, an article about a perfectly notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? No! Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement. Improvement is the opposite of deletion.
An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve this worthwhile content.
Why is it important to read Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion?
Every time an article is deleted, the contributions that were made to it are lost. Wikipedia administrators can access the information in deleted articles, but they are not necessarily experts on the article's topic. Once an article is deleted, its content, value, and appropriateness can no longer be evaluated by the general public.
In addition, the contributor who writes a poor article on a notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, they may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Everyone starts somewhere, and we should encourage better writing and better articles. Good faith efforts to contribute should be met with encouragement to improve.
This makes Articles for Deletion a very important place; one that deserves everyone's attention.
A common axiom is that "AFD is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted.
The question on whether a poor but improvable article ought to be deleted is a major point of contention, and has given rise to the wiki-philosophies immediatism and eventualism. The Article Rescue Squadron was highlighted in a July 2007 Wikipedia Signpost, and has grown exponentially with many processes to tag, track, and list tagged articles.
What can one person do?
The Article Rescue Squadron is not about arguing on talk pages but instead about editing articles. If everyone who cares about preserving important topics and removing unsuitable content reads one deletion discussion per day (or even one per week), the impact will benefit all our readers. Moreover, reading through an article nominated for deletion and adding sources and rewriting the text to remove or reword unsuitable content will help other editors decide if the article should be kept or deleted.
So ARS wants to keep everything?
No. The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes or making policy simply to ensure that nothing is deleted. The ARS ensures that articles that can be written to follow wiki policies do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing, which per WP:AFD means that it was not a good candidate for deletion. The {{So fix it}} and {{Solookitup}} templates are sometimes all that's required for a rescue.
Instructions
- What the Rescue template is for:
Our main focus is on articles on notable subjects going through AfD that:
- Need references
- Are written poorly
- Lack information readily available
- Need cleaning up.
We also help rescue content in main namespace and other XfD processes, such as MfD and TfD.
- What the Rescue template is not for:
- Articles that are not in the AfD process, including articles that have been deleted, even if you have archived the content. You might post {{findsourcesnotice}} to the article's talk page as a way to suggest where editors may find sourced material for the article.
- Articles that, no matter what improvements were made, would be considered inappropriate per WP:What Wikipedia is not. Use common sense, and feel free to ask what other editors think on the project talk page.
- Articles that after reasonable attempts, still cannot currently be reliably sourced.
- Userpages.
- Usage:
If an article has been tagged for deletion (Afd), and you feel it meets the above guidelines, then you can flag an article for rescuing by:
- clicking edit; and
- adding the following line of text at the top of the page as shown in the example below:
{{Rescue}}
You can also add Rescue|page=Article name (2nd nomination) to point to the proper AFD discussion in the Rescue banner.
If you are the main editor of the article tagged for deletion, or are unsure if an article is a good candidate for the Article Rescue Squadron, then please post a message including the article's title on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
You can also add the template {{subst:Afdrescue}} to the deletion discussion, to let other editors know that this item was tagged for rescue. This produces output similar to the following:
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. YourUserName (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Example:
You can flag an article for Rescue by editing it to add the bolded text under the AfD tag, but within the two sets of <!-- --> tags, as in the below example using a Robin Sage AfD:
- <!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->
- {{AfDM|page=Robin Sage|date=2007 September 11|substed=yes}}
- {{Rescue}}
- <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
The article will then appear in this category, along with all the others flagged for rescue. Adding it within the two sets of <!-- --> tags will also allow the closing admin to automatically remove the tag when closing the AfD.
- Removing a rescue tag:
It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before the deletion discussion is complete. The XfD process usually takes a week, and the tag is in place for less than that. Let the XfD closer remove it when the XfD tag is removed or the item is deleted. In all cases remain civil, and assume good faith that other editors are working to improve Wikipedia.
Tips to help rescue articles
- Browse Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion periodically, and consider tagging articles that you feel meet notability guidelines.
- Help improve articles flagged for rescue, by adding sources and otherwise cleaning them up.
- In general, discuss issues concerning an individual article on that article's talk page, not on this project's talk page.
- Check Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for tips.
- Source searches:
- Google News
- Google Book Search
- Google Scholar
- NewsLibrary.com
- FindArticles.com
- World Cat
- Wikipedia Reference Search by the WRS project
Barnstars
There are four snazzy Rescue Barnstars for anyone who has made significant contributions to rescuing articles; it is up to those awarding them to choose which one to use:
Barnstars | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Hall of fame:
How to become a member of Article Rescue Squadron
To join, simply add your name to our membership list; feel free to add your ideas to the project discussion page as well.
Then place this tag:
on your user page:
This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron. |
- There is an automatically-created list of members using this banner here.
Once you've rescued an article or two, show your Rescue Squadron pride with
- {{User:Jclemens/Rescues|n}}
(where n is the number of articles you've helped rescue)
This user has rescued n articles by improving them in the face of pending deletion. |
- There is an automatically-created list of members using this banner here.
- To invite someone:
To invite someone to join ARS, you can use our handy invite by pasting {{Article Rescue Squadron invite}} to their userpage.
Articles currently tagged for rescue
Articles currently tagged for rescue |
---|
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found
|
Selected previous rescues
See a selected list of previous rescues at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame
Article alerts
Article alerts for ARS |
---|
Restoration of articles
A number of articles have recently been deleted as Biographies that had been flagged for years as unsourced. The admins who deleted them have said they are happy for them to be restored providing any restored articles are then properly sourced and made fully compliant with wp:BLP. So if you are ready to Source them we will Just Restore them! NB To restoring admins, remove any negative material (it's in the history so it can be readded when sourced) and watchlist the article. If it isn't sourced within 48 hours, please redelete it. Suggest maximum 4 articles per restoration session, please check they were deleted for being unsourced BLPs and don't forget to restore the talkpages as well.
To volunteer to reference one or more of the articles that have recently been deleted as unreferenced BLPs, please just list them below in the format * I volunteer to reference [[article1]], [[article2]], [[article3]], [[article4]] ~~~~ (For articles deleted for other reasons please see Deletion review).
- I volunteer to next reference Thomas T. Matteson, Leo A. Berg, and Guðmundur Gunnarsson.--Milowent (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, restored all three. ϢereSpielChequers 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- When I went to source them, I was pleased to find that Bigtimepeace has already sourced all three!--Milowent (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Lets restore all of them to the incubator. Ikip 03:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that we can do that unless either the RFC concludes with that as part of its solution, or you find an admin willing to wp:wheelwar. The current process is a compromise that allows us to go ahead and rescue these articles. ϢereSpielChequers 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, restored all three. ϢereSpielChequers 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I volunteer to reference Nikollë Nikprelaj, Buddy England and Brandon Reilly. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, restored all three. ϢereSpielChequers 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Question: Should we be restoring these before they are sourced or userfying them first? I've been receiving userfied versions, sourcing them, THEN returning them to article space. It's going to be ~12 hours before I get these done and I don't want any controversy about them hanging around in article space without sources. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- A. Within 24 hours should be uncontentious. - For admins its different as they can restore when they are ready to source things. I'm not a big fan of userfying anything other than testpages and autobiographies as I think that article editing should be a collaborative mainspace venture. ϢereSpielChequers 16:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Question: Should we be restoring these before they are sourced or userfying them first? I've been receiving userfied versions, sourcing them, THEN returning them to article space. It's going to be ~12 hours before I get these done and I don't want any controversy about them hanging around in article space without sources. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, restored all three. ϢereSpielChequers 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I volunteer to next reference Cathy Greene, John Bucklaschuk, and Elly Dekker.--Milowent (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I volunteer to next reference Michel Dalberto. J04n(talk page) 01:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll do Slobodan Lalović. Restorations have slowed as the most notable folks have been revived at this point.--Milowent (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, restored. Do you think the others are not notable or just not in topics that interest you? ϢereSpielChequers 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- To answer your question to Milowent from my perspective: a little of both. I can see cached versions and categories for the articles deleted by Scott MacDonald here but for the other deleted articles I'm relying on this which only gives article names and isn't helpful in determining rescuable articles. So of the MacDonald articles, my answer is is yes to both, for the others, I wish I could have more information. J04n(talk page) 18:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at every deleted article so I can't say they all aren't notable, its just my sense from looking at some of them. I am going off this list User:Apoc2400/Deletion list, where some have added comments regarding a few that may not be worth restoring - it would be useful to get an opinion there on the remaining unrestored ones.--Milowent (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would think a good test is to use What links here and see what they were linked to... I'm pretty sure that the deleting admins didn't delink the articles, and I'm not as fussed at losing articles that have been orphans for years. I'd offer to look through a bunch and see which I think are more notable than others, but I suspect it would be difficult to remove my prejudices from the process. ϢereSpielChequers 10:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, restored. Do you think the others are not notable or just not in topics that interest you? ϢereSpielChequers 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Next up, I would request Lisa Gastineau. The type of article no self-respecting editor would like to source, yet it was a fairly popular article (viewed 3955 times in December 2009) which could be be easily sourced and expanded.--Milowent (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, restored. There were a whole load of vandalisms there, I think I left them all out of the restore but that could become a bit of a vandal target. ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take Yaya Dillo Djérou. I'll use [1] , [2].--Elvey (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, restored, good choice - we have a real shortage of African articles. ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take Adnan Coker, Turkish artist with lots of foreign language articles out there, and a few worthwhile English ones, a "master of contemporary Turkish painting".--Milowent (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
List of administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles |
---|
no pages or subcategories |
Hey all, can you please update WP:ARS/BLP with the articles you saved, a former Arbitration member, Casliber, ask me to complete this list. He will probably use it to argue that we need to be careful. Thanks. Ikip 01:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
See also
- Alternative outlets for potentially useful/valuable content which is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
- Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
- Deletion policy
- Deletion precedents
- Deletion process
- Deletion review
- Deletion review guide
- Guide to deletion
- Introduction to deletion process
- Potential, not just current state
- There is no deadline
- Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki, a useful tool for referencing articles
- Related projects
- Wikipedia:Article Incubator
- WikiProject Abandoned Articles
- WikiProject Deletion
- WikiProject Deletion sorting
- WikiProject Notability
- Essays, etc.
- Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia
- User:Fresheneesz: Don't Destroy
- Article rescue contest
- Don't be an ostrich
- The Heymann Standard describes the amount of work that an editor feels a page needs to change their vote from "delete" or "neutral" to "keep" in an Articles for deletion debate.
- Give an article a chance
- Inclusionist's Guide To Deletion Debates
- Archimedes was deleted