Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 4

message: A bit off-topic for this project, but the skills are the same. This article was written by User:Lord Emsworth some years ago, and promoted, deservedly, to FA. But this was before the days of in-line citation, and the references (which Emsworth appears to have used in his usual scholarly fashion) are listed at the foot. Would you be interested in rescuing this FA status? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of a late response but you might do better to enlist the League of Copy Editors; although the skill sets are similar the motivations and therefore style is much different and they are experienced at such challenges. Benjiboi 05:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/British House of Commons]]

message: I've been paying more attention lately to the AfD process, after I discovered what to me is an obvious sock puppet who has done nothing but propose AfDs or (delete content)(redirect) since registration, targeting articles in a particular field, removing information, often sucessfully, that might be used as arguments against his apparent POV. (From the original edits, the target of his ire was blatant.)
What I saw, reviewing the successful deletions, was that, apparently, nobody interested in the topic of the article had noticed the AfD. In the field involved, many articles have been created by experts, and, indeed, their work frequently does not initially meet Wikipedia sourcing standards. A standard and legitimate response is to place a citation needed or other tag on the article, not to propose deletion. This particular serial drive-by nominator would allege content problems, sometimes claiming that finding reliable source would be impossible. Most nominator claims were false; for example, the AFD on one particular organization's article claimed that its web site was the work of one single person, and solely original research, when any examination of that site would have found contrary information. (That organization was probably of marginal notability at the time. Now, more than a year later, it is clearly notable, in my opinion, and I've seen excerpts from a forthcoming book about it, published by a major publisher.) Anyone who knew the topic would have recognized the misrepresentations. Yet, apparently, many vote on AfDs with "Delete" without actually doing any research. They seem to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. That's an error.
Basically, the common-law principle underlying AGF is that testimony is presumed true unless controverted. With an AfD, we have *inherently* contradictory testimony, frequently. We should assume good faith on the part of the article creator and all those who worked on it as well, so the claims of a nominator should *never* be taken as accurate unless verified.
In a number of AfDs, there was the AfD and a "delete" vote within minutes, not nearly enough time to do any significant research. At a recent RfA, I voted against an administrator candidate because he had been such a delete voter; in the end, his was the only delete vote, because this particular AfD got noticed by people who understood the field. When he noted that this was not one of his finer moments, and said he'd be more careful in the future, I changed my vote to support....
The claim of vote stacking is particularly interesting. Wikipedia process generally suffers from what I call participation bias. That is, a particular controversy may attract partisans; plus participation in many AfDs is very small. The latter may actually be quite proper, if those who voted actually did some research trying to find evidence for notability. However, the number of votes is supposed to be irrelevant; rather, the standard is properly the cogency of the arguments presented. Frankly, twere it up to me, I'd remove votes from AfD pages that are, for example, "Delete per nom." Likewise Keep or Delete votes with no facts. Voters should be *responsible* for their votes; a "per nom" vote should be a declaration that the voter has verified every fact alleged by the nominator. What should be actual practice with AfDs would b to separate "votes" from arguments. There is still room for raw votes, but, properly, the discussion of notability should follow standard NPOV practice, though with greatly reduced verifiability standards. For example, someone might argue based on personal knowledge. That's testimony, and it would be admissible in a court of law, so it should likewise be in AfDs; however, the source of claims in an AfD should be stated. "I knew him personally, and X was true, I witnessed it."
In one ironic example, the AfD for Blood electrification, there was a delete argument: "Proven quackery" or something like that. Now, if Blood electrification was "proven quackery," -- which it might be, it is certainly quack medicine in my opinion -- surely the proof could be referenced in the article, thus confirming at the same time notability and removing possible POV bias by not having that material included. However, clearly, there is an organization of editors dedicated to removing "quackery" from Wikipedia, even where the quackery is notable. In the case of Blood electrification, I found an FTC complaint (followed by a consent decree) against a provider of equipment used for this process, that specifically mentioned "blood electrification." Reliable source, notable quackery. These editors, or some of them, are not concerned with improving articles, they are concerned with, effectively, censorship, protecting the public from error and misleading claims. And editing articles to balance out POV claims in them, and to remove unsourced claims if they cannot be verified, that's too much work. Much, much faster to run an AfD. Almost all delete voters in the Blood electrification AfD, who presented arguments, claimed that the article was POV. I went over the article, removing nonsense, but most of it was already balanced, not POV, though sometimes inadequately sourced. And I argued that if anyone thought the article was seriously POV, and beyond easy rescue, they could stub it to a definition and give the article some time. Frankly, I don't understand why that AfD was closed as Delete. I see no explanation except for the number of votes.
Again, some ironies: there was a canvassing warning posted in this AfD. Yet no evidence of actual vote-stacking in the keep direction. The nominator did not give any arguments at all. My own review of the evidence presented was that (1) most delete arguments were based on alleged content problems, (2) some were based on an opinion that reliable source would be impossible to find, and (3) few were based on non-notability. Given that, with about an hour's research, I did find some level of RS, and reported that back to the AfD, I'd have expected the admin closing to pay attention to this evidence. However, there was no explanation with the closing, just "The result was delete." I can say what this looks like to me: Neil counted the votes and/or followed his own opinion. What policy or guideline was followed? Mystery to me. I've seen quite a few AfDs like this. When an AfD is clear and there is little or no dissent, and policy application is obvious, fine. But that was not the case here. I did not, in fact, see a cogent argument for deletion. --Abd (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really thoughtful essay!  I added a link to it on my userpage as number 12: .  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: passing by, I think the specific source in  the blood electrification example given is not a good one--the   "FTC complaint (followed by a consent decree)" takes place in every complaint FTC carries through to a conclusion, whether or not important. a routine law enforcement action does not make something notable. It's like deriving notability from a police blotter.  This is not a comment of the debate over that article in general, just the RS example chosen. Disclosure: i !voted Delete, and will again until there is a real source. At this pt, the major source of notability for it has been the articles inserted on its behalf in WP. Not that I am happy with the way we do AfDs. The simplest thing that could help them  attainable at present is wider participation, to eliminate the cabal effect one way or another. DGG (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, DGG. The FTC complaint contains reports of the advertising content used by the defendant. While it's not conclusive as a fact, it is reliable enough to use with attribution, and what is in the consent decree is even more useful, though far less extensive (I did not look at it again to write this). My belief is that an NPOV, verifiable article can be written on the topic, but it's work. I excluded Wikipedia from my searches, as is proper. I also worked on the article, removing inappropriate material and some POV bias, but to do a good job of that would have required much more research than the hour or two I spent, total. The point is that there is such a thing as "blood electrification," there is some theoretical basis in experiment for it -- used way beyond reason, as is common with quackery -- and there are products being sold to do it. It deserves a stub, at least.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: but everything is advertised, and not everything is notable. That's how the FTC came to hear about it. The content would be usable, if the subject were notable. DGG (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AGF is backwards with AfDs;  and vote stacking should be ''irrelevant'' 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Benjiboi 21:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep without restrictions. Benjiboi 03:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Rescue}}]] 

message: Your opinions, please:
Operation Hump.
And also:
Wolfie
In the meantime, please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids/7201–7300. Zenwhat (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All seem notable and perfect for wikipedia. Benjiboi 22:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What should we be looking for? --Kizor 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Operation Hump lead to the first Medal of Honor being given to a black man since the end of the 19'th century.  As such it is likely notable.  Tone of the article could do with some work.  I will either tag or nominate Wolfie for deletion as soon as I have read up on the notability criteria for bands.  There is no real reason to keep the lists of asteroids, but earlier AfD's have ended with an overwhelming consensus to keep so I acknowledge that there is no good reason to delete either. Taemyr (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not nominating.  I am unsure about whether criteria  5 on WP:Music applies.  Also, linked to from wikipedia is this  which is nontrivial, reliable is outside my ability to judge.  Taemyr (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, from the quotation above, that Zenwhat was actually referring to Wolfie (disambiguation), and just gave us the wrong link to Wolfie. However, I can't see anything wrong with that, either, except the "d"s on the end of "nicknamed". Kizor asked the right question: what are we looking for? AndyJones (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: To demonstrate to you all how I'm not a radical deletionist, I created an article that needs expanding, the inclusion of references, and protection from deletionists: Ball shagger. They sold this item at Wal-Mart, when I worked there and it is, so far as I know, the standard term for it, in America at least. I was surprised to see that the article didn't already exist. Yay for me being able to be the one to include the information! Your input is appreciated. Zenwhat (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read WP:POINT. Taemyr (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As for the article, it already exists so I have taken the liberty of redirecting Ball shagger to Ball washer.  Taemyr (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you! Zenwhat (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Taemyr: You misunderstand my intentions. It is not my intention to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, but to help Wikipedia by making the point that this group's actions are disruptive. Zenwhat (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You will note that intentions is not mentioned in WP:POINT. Taemyr (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Zenwhat, you have neither made your point nor your intentions clear, I suggest you do one or both at your earliest convenience. By now you should have a full understanding that we rescue articles from incorrect deletion by merely following guidelines and policy and improving them to a point that they are up to scratch for inclusion in wikipedia. If you still feel that this is not acceptable, then I suggest you rethink your involvement in wikipedia, because It'll be a cold day in hell before I/we stop improving articles nominated for deletion with resolvable reasons. Fosnez (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just as well. We probably lost the possibility of a productive discussion on this matter two sections ago. --Kizor 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request for comment 

message: I have made this proposal on the talk page of the Rescue template; Template_talk:Rescue#Other_proposal.
Discussion there has gone stale, is there anyone in ARS that has a problem with my suggested template; User:Taemyr/Rescue Taemyr (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As this talk page is active please post here whatever proposal you have and link to your proposed template. Benjiboi 01:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: On further look, you got plenty of response but I will second what Fosnez stated that I find no problem with linking the template to our project page and will oppose removing that link. Benjiboi 01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to rescue template. 

message: I added our template to Me and the Pumpkin Queen and have begun a pretty substantial revision since its nomination.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New addition