< January 12 | January 14 > |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Single useOrphan; non-standard appearance; redundant ((Infobox station)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Merge. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The former is redundant to the latter; and both to ((Infobox station)). I've just found an article using both! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an old user warning template for the removal of CSD templates from an article. It is redundant to the Template:Uw-speedy1 series and it misrepresents policy by stating you can remove the tag if you can indicate why the subject "is really notable". Article creators are not allowed remove speedy deletion templates and "really notable" =/= "credible claim of significance or importance". Yoenit (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Note: Template is protected and cannot be tagged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 January 27. The result of the deletion review was deletion endorsed. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result of the discussion was Delete. This explanation is, of course, going to be rather long. I'll understand if people don't want to go all the way through it ;p.
Template:Rescue is a template used by the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS), a group of volunteers who work to improve "at-risk" articles, as a way of notifying their members when an article is on the verge of deletion and thus in need of immediate work. Both the ARS and this template have been controversial, with three previous nominations for deletion, as well as AN/I discussions that complain of the ARS's (alleged) bias or militiarism, and consider this template an enabler of that attitude at Articles for Deletion. Most recently, another AN/I thread was started, again complaining of the approach ARS members took to deletion discussions and discussing this template's position. Following a long and incredibly complex discussion I haven't the energy or RAM to begin summarising, User:Northamerica1000 procedurally nominated Template:Rescue for deletion here. This was because of his urge to resolve the discussion and have it move to a more appropriate place, which he is to be strongly commended for.
Because it was a procedural nomination, Northamerica1000 did not directly give a rationale (he personally supports keeping the template), but instead used the words of others, stating " Some users consider use of the template as canvassing, other's state that it's used to notify other users to !vote "keep" in AfD discussions". This, along with other arguments put forward in the ensuing discussion (which are, briefly summarised, that the template is irrelevant as it only does things which other templates already do), is the rationale for deletion; I see my role as to take this rationale, investigate whether the ensuing comments have validated it, and then investigate whether those same comments have provided an adequate rebuttal. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion lists several criteria for deleting templates, including whether or not it violates policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV (the latter of which, WP:CANVASS is closely related to), and whether it is irrelevant and has been subsumed by other, more general purpose or useful templates. The alleged use of this template for canvassing would fall under the first category, while the issue that other, general-purpose AfD templates do the same job would fall under the latter. Both are valid rationales for deletion, if justified.
On the canvassing front, I see a lot of people in this discussion saying "I've seen it happen". I'd be very uncomfortable deleting on these grounds alone, for the same reason that I'd find it awkward to close an AfD as "keep" because people have been saying "I've totally seen sources. Totally. They're around here somewhere". Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence, and accusing a large group of users of ganging up to sway consensus in their favour is just such an assertion. We are all editors here, and we should all remember that we are here for the same reason; to create a font of knowledge for the world. Anything that provokes or implies splits in our culture should be backed up by evidence. The same applies to the canvassing assertions in the discussion, which seem to do nothing but provoke further discontent without evidence. In future, such statements should be thoroughly (and cautiously) investigated before the person making them sees fit to post them publicly.
There is more traction for the idea that the template serves no useful purpose due to the presence of other, more relevant, deletion tags. Under current guidelines, all interested parties should be notified about an AfD of an article they have been involved in, and most wikiprojects maintain streams of AfDs within their area that people can see and get involved in, should they have an opinion on the article. These rules and streams are uncontroversial and provide easy mechanisms for interested people to get involved in deletion discussions. This contrasts with the Rescue template, which as many people have said below creates controversy while seemingly adding nothing of value to deletion discussions. This Templates for Discussion thread is, even without the background to it, evidence of that. I note User:Fluffernutter's point, which is echoed by many others; that when you have something that provides no additional functionality but strife, the easiest way to resolve this strife (and not, in the end, reduce functionality) is to delete it. That is precisely what consensus says I should do.
Deletion discussions are not bean-counting exercises, and I have attempted to get down to the meat of the issues rather than simply counting the bolded words; I will note that if I had simply counted, I would have come up with the same result, since (by my count, apologies if it's a bit off) the 34 keeps are far outweighed by the 53 editors calling for this template's deletion. That number - 89 editors - is probably one of the largest I've ever seen in a deletion discussion, and I tend to specialise in large-scale discussions. Those users who commented, on whatever side, thank you for your participation; I will understand if some editors wish to take this to WP:DRV, and if anyone can point to some (neutral) functionality that should be integrated into other AfD templates, I'm happy to undelete for the purpose of retrieving that.
Ironholds (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
(Added request for comment, requesting community input. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC))
Per a discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents – Article Rescue Squadron on AfD, several users have questioned the rationale for having this template on Wikipedia. Some users consider use of the template as canvassing, other's state that it's used to notify other users to !vote "keep" in AfD discussions. Therefore, I've started this deletion discussion, as this seems to be a more appropriate place for the matter to be resolved at this time. (I've already posted comments regarding my opinions regarding this matter at the listing above for Administrators' noticeboard – incidents.) Northamerica1000(talk) 04:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
More substantively, the template serves an encyclopedia-preserving purpose: to bring attention to content that at least one editor in good standing believes can be improved through the addition of sources.
The removal of the template is predefined as the duration of the AfD discussion, which is the limit of when it makes sense. Thus, it's also one of only two templates (that I can remember, ((hangon)) being the other) that can only be placed on an an article if another specific template is already present. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
An ARS member comments above that Deleting this template would send a message to the world that the ARS has been destroyed and that deletionism has won. This rhetoric is exactly the problem here: AfD is not a battleground between inclusionists and deletionists, and it is not a place where noble inclusionists equipped with lifebuoys attempt to rescue an article from evil deletionists. Any attempt to turn it into such a place is deeply harmful to the project. Hut 8.5 10:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
((citations missing))
do the same job of alerting editors to the issues without serving as a canvassing tool. WP:CANVASS states, under its list of "Inappropriate notifications", that "Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage" - that appears to be the exact purpose of this template. Yunshui 雲水 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)In addition, the argument of "You can't remove the template!" "Why?" "Because we say you can't remove the template!" is...vacuous. I could create Wikiproject Sparklecorn, which adds glittery overlays and ponies to articles I think need to be prettier. I could write into the guidelines of Wikiproject Sparklecorn that no one may remove my bedazzling. That doesn't mean that my prohibition has any actual strength, and no one would be expected to go "...sigh. She's bedazzled Death. And yet I'm not permitted to remove the glitter!" If people from Wikiproject Sparklecorn continued to assert that my glitter was valid in all cases and unremovable, the most efficient solution to that on the community's part would be to delete our glitter templates, which served no valid purpose, not to sprint around trying to topic-ban each person who loves glitter. Similarly, this TfD is the better route than attempting to decide whether individual ARS editors knew the effect of their use of the template was to canvass. The template canvasses and is being used in a way that places the desires of ARS over the guidelines of the community; the template is therefore a problem and the least dramatic fix to that problem is to delete it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Question on use of rescue tag – from December 2011 (This discussion is CLOSED, please do not edit or modify it). |
---|
Question on use of rescue tag
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashless.org, you argued that the article already has ample sourcing to pass the GNG and should be kept. In that case, why did you add the rescue tag?--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Look, I don't know how to say this any more clearly. If an article already has sourcing to show that it is notable enough to not be deleted, you do not tag it for rescue. Rescue is not simply for articles where you know it shouldn't be deleted and therefore need to bring in editors to !vote keep. That is canvassing, and is not acceptable here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I added the sources to the article, however, the article is still being considered for deletion. If you think the topic is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, then vote at the AfD to keep it, since this appears to be your stance. Appropriate use of tags is not canvassing, it's adding a template to an article. Other editors may not agree with the notability of the topic. Also, use of the rescue tag is not canvassing for !votes of any sort whatsoever Northamerica1000(talk) 06:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's the verbatim text from the actual tag: "This article has been tagged for rescue. Please review the deletion discussion and help improve the article to make clear whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion and notability criteria. You may edit this article to add reliable sources, and address other concerns raised in the discussion. Find sources: Google, News, Books, Scholar. Please leave this tag in place until the discussion has closed." It's absolutely reasonable to add references to articles that one tags for rescue, and conversely it's absolutely reasonable to include references that establish topic notability in AfD discussions. Your statement above about adding a rescue tag asking for some type of !votes is assumptive, and false. Also note the text in the tag, "You may edit this article to add reliable sources, and address other concerns raised in the discussion." Again, in all kindness, please consider improving the article and/or discussing it's notability at its AfD. Thank you. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Closing statement: The wording of this query was inaccurate, misstating what I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashless.org. The Kashless.org article is still in AfD, and has not been proven to pass GNG at this time. The person messaging me seems to assume that the addition of references to the Kashless.org article will confer to a keep result in its AfD discussion, thus disallowing the use of a rescue tag for the article. Or, it could be an argument that since references were added to the article, the rescue tag cannot be used. However, the article remains in AfD, being considered for deletion. It is appropriate to add references to articles that are tagged for rescue, and also to cite references in AfD discussions. Furthermore, adding rescue tags to articles is not canvassing for !votes of any kind whatsoever, as repeatedly assumed by the person continuously messaging me. Again, it is allowed and functional to add references to articles that are in AfD and to cite reliable sources in AfD discussions. Adding references of any sort does not disqualify use of the rescue template whatsoever. This discussion is closed. |
disruptive special interest group whose agenda can be found here. The message they are sending out is to get as many users as possible to show up to this discussion to go after their enemies, who they call "inclusionists". I have no idea why they would think I would join them in their "crusade" (was I contacted by accident?) and to be honest I really do not appreciate being contacted in such a manner. I am no snitch (YOU know who you are and can feel ashamed for yourself!), but a quick read over the comments in this discussion demonstrates who is really here to build an encyclopedia and who is part of this off-wikipedia organization bent on ruining Wikipedia in a manner consistent with that legislation the website is actually protesting by going dark tomorrow. One need only look at the vicious, hateful, and immature remarks by User:Reyk and User:Tarc, in particular, to see what the so-called Association of Deletionist Wikipedians are all about. What's especially comical is their attempts at being witty (for example) just fall flat. The hypocrisy of targetting this Article Rescue Squadron while maintaining a group with a stated agenda of deleting articles and while conducting an off-site campaign to get as many supporters here as they can is sickening. I really hope that whoever closes this discussion gives weight to actual arguments, because it is beyond apparent that some significant amount of the deletes are hypocritically coming from a coordinated off-site campaign or are just run of the mill trolling. If anyone really does have an issue with special groups using canvassing, then they better shut down that Deletionist group as well, because otherwise hypocrisy reigns supreme. At least these rescue people's goals seem to be about improving articles rather than limiting human knowledge arbitrarily. The combative nature of those saying to "burn the template with fire" as someone actually posted just further proves what they are about. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus sion/Log/2012_January_13&diff=prev&oldid=471452259 here] and here, for example. Yeah, burning things was always what the real champions of history advocated... So, no I am not going to associate with those calling for "burning" and "killing" of things. Looking over other examples in this discussion, it looks like the rescue people are those who actually do the hard and real work of searching for sources and incorporating them into articles. What I am seeing here is people being miffed about being called out for their laziness to do that themselves or ignorance about whatever random topic they happen to personally not care about and so do not want Wikipedia to cover. If worse comes to worse, these rescue people improve the article. God forbid! Keeping this template seems to have potentially positive consequences, whereas deleting it is just giving into those want to lazily and ignorantly nominate things with as little opposition and embarrassment as possible. Merely having deletion discussions in the first place is what causes the so called battleground mentality. One article improvement group has no real effect on that and if anything they seem to either actually improve articles, which should be why we are here, or if they don't, well, just ignore them. No one makes anyone read any given post nor is anyone required to respond to and counter everything they disagree with. And please do not send me any more messages inviting me to discussions. Phew! Glad that's over. Thank you. --A Pocket Full of Sunshine 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
((notability))
to ((unsourced))
to ((expert))
to the hundreds of other template messages— all with varying degress of "hey this article needs to be rescued" emphasis. The less urgent tend to be yellow, the orange tend to be more urgent. AfD is the last chance, and the redness of the template emphasizes this.((rescue))
template — in fact, it's the last rescue template an article sees before deletion. Same goes with CSD and PROD-tagged articles.((rescue))
were used on all articles—not just disproportionately those in danger of deletion—then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. It's not. It's used to pseudo-legitimately rally those watching for transclusions of the template in order to sway the outcome of the AfD in favor of a particular wiki-political ideology. If an article can stand on its own merits, it doesn't need ((rescue))
—it simply needs to be fixed. If it can't be fixed, then it gets deleted, without prejudice against re-creating or un-deleting it having fixed the issues that the AfD addresses—as has always been the case. The equivalent template for WP:DRV would be something like "((stillAwful))
," which I assure you would result in it being deleted for canvassing delete !votes.The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The template appears to have only been ever used on British Rail Class 58 and duplicates the function of Template:Infobox locomotive - I've move all the info into the infobox (even that which is uncited) - Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 58 is a related deletion proposal Mddkpp (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The template appears to have only been ever used on British Rail Class 58 (also see talk page) and duplicates thye function of Template:Infobox locomotive - I've move all the info into the infobox (even that which is uncited) - Template:UK Diesel Train Technical is a related deletion proposal Mddkpp (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)