Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
Content deleted Content added
m |
m |
||
Line 275: # I've spend a lot of time on AfD recently, and have seen little evidence of this problem (and nothing that I would definitely attribute to ARS people). Canvassing on AfD seems to come from external sources (e.g. a business or band getting their fans to weigh in) and tends to be counterproductive because the arguments are weak or irrelevant. On the other hand, if by "canvassing" you mean actively encouraging people to find sources and improve articles, I don't see much evidence of that happening either, but were it to happen it would be a good thing not a bad thing. --[[User:Colapeninsula|Colapeninsula]] ([[User talk:Colapeninsula|talk]]) 11:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC) # AfDs are not votes. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 20:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC) # It happens less than it once did, and I think that now to characterize it as "frequently" is inaccurate. [[User:Paul Erik|< #In over two years as an ARS member I have not once been canvassed to any particular AfD. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 07:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Line 366: # Completely agree. For the record, I am not a member of ARS. [[User:Gandalf61|Gandalf61]] ([[User talk:Gandalf61|talk]]) 09:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC) # Very well put. <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">– [[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;"> +</font>]]</span> 12:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC) # [[User:Paul Erik|< # ''[[Cy pres]]'' to my opinion. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 15:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC) # Reasonable. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk to me</font>]]</sub> 15:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Line 486: # Agree. Problems that the author has with the behaviour of individual editors should be raised with those editors and then, if necessary, escalated through the steps outlined in [[WP:DR]]. This RfC, which is targetting a whole group and trying to draw battle lines between "inclusionists" and "deletionists", is unhelpful and unnecessarily combative. For the record, I am not a member of ARS. [[User:Gandalf61|Gandalf61]] ([[User talk:Gandalf61|talk]]) 09:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC) # Here, here! [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 15:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC) # [[User:Paul Erik|< ==== Oppose ==== Line 592: #Moral support. I can only handle belonging to one project, but as a person who has done a few non-AfD, non-ARS rescues ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pleasant_Valley,_Baker_County,_Oregon&diff=418666688&oldid=418531102], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren,_Oregon&diff=207299984&oldid=207298367], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloucher,_Oregon&diff=444205189&oldid=444181492], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leaburg,_Oregon&diff=207653043&oldid=207633255], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silver_Lake_(Oregon)&diff=162724857&oldid=162724222], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surf_Pines,_Oregon&oldid=399402354] is how it's done, folks) I'd be willing to actually help improve articles the ARS has taken an interest in--''if'' they are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. (I guess I'm a Whatever-That-Absurdly-Long-Acronym-Is -ist.) [[User:Valfontis|Valfontis]] ([[User talk:Valfontis|talk]]) 18:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC) # Agreed, though I think that more people would join if it were renamed "Article Improvement Squadron." In that case, it could still have as one of its stated goals "to improve articles at AfD to the point that most reasonable editors would !vote 'keep'." [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 20:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC) # [[User:Paul Erik|< # Welcome conclusion. ```[[User: Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>''']]<small>[[User talk:Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>''']]</small> 05:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Line 781: # [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 18:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC) #This remains largely unenforceable, but I think it should be "required". You ''should'' be darn embarrassed to put something at AfD when 10 seconds of looking would have shown that the topic is notable. And if it happens a lot, there is (and I think most would agree) a [[WP:COMPETENCE]] issue. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 16:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC) # I would like to see this proposed in the appropriate forum, as I think it's important enough to be "required" in spirit. That it is not 100-percent enforceable is beside the point; many of our policy requirements are not perfectly enforceable. I support DGG's comment ''Why should it be the nom? Basically, because they have gotten there first, and have no business listing it otherwise. Nor does anyone have the ability to !vote in a AfD discussion unless they either do this or know it has been done.'' Also agreeing with Jclemens' comments above, and I would further note that [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] essentially asks that ''someone'' has searched for sources for an article before it can be deleted as "non-notable". [[User:Paul Erik|< # I do think a reasonable stab at [[WP:BEFORE]] should be required of anyone nominating an article for deletion. I particularly hate to see articles get AfD'd within literally minutes of their creation, because it means that the nominator almost certainly didn't follow [[WP:BEFORE]]; the lapse of time between creation and nomination was not enough for them to do any research. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 22:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC) | |||