Note that this
wikiproject is only intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting
votes or vote-stacking. Be sure to follow
the guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should use
Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here.
Focus on
improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic
notability by adding
reliable-sourcereferences with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion.
Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Wikipedia's
deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to.
Treydaprogdude (
talk) 3:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC) I've had too many of my acceptably sourced articles and edits removed. Time for revenge that actually benefits humanity.
Lightburst (
talk) 18:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC) The first rule of ARS is you do not talk about ARS. The second rule is you do not talk about ARS. Since 2019 - I have been contributing. I love to do research: I am active in the navigation areas of the project, and I frequently do deletion sorting. i also start articles, my interests are varied.
Lightburst (
talk)
18:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Montanabw(talk)17:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC) . Been leaning toward the inclusionist realm for a long time, many AfD's often could be saved with a suitable merge, and with far less drama. Systemic bias issues also contribute to too many AfDs.reply
7&6=thirteen (
☎) Been rescuing articles for years. Saving and maintaining content, and contesting untoward proposed deletions is important for the project
09:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)reply
AdamBMorgan (
talk)
23:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC) - I added the userbox to my page a while ago but didn't notice this list until I was invited to sign. I consider myself a member and now I'm on the list.reply
Airplanemantalk22:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I think it's time I'd join. When patrolling new pages, I often spruce up articles to make sure they don't get deleted and am happy to join the team :).reply
Andrewcrawford (
talk -
contrib)
14:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I am one that believes a lot of articles get delted just because of poor work, something is new so notabitly is hard ot prove but not necessarily not htere, and that there is a lot of editors out there that do not care about the topic or do not research it morereply
BelugaboyTalk to Me! Milk the chicken!! Articles shouldn't be deleted if they might do good, they should just be improved, even if drastic measures are taken and we have to 'Send Superior' instead of the 'town ambulance system,' which for me is another word of saying more people working more time on the project.
01:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)reply
brighterorange (
talk)16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (admin) This is a good idea. I really hate seeing a borderline article, spending effort to fix it, and then seeing that effort wasted because of the 6 delete votes cast before I started!reply
Canley11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - My proudest moments on Wikipedia have been rescuing articles from the jaws of AfD with a spot of referencing and rewriting. I'd be delighted to be a part of this much-needed team.reply
Chubbles I am ace at determining the notability of musicians and musical ensembles. I'm happy to be contacted about any problem cases.
Citizen-of-wiki (
talk)
00:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC) The deletionists are not evil people they just get a little carried away sometimes. Someone needs to provide a balance to prevent Wikipedia from being deleted off the face of the earth. "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." By Burke, Edmund in his "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents and the Two Speeches on America." [ Published 1770. Sixth Edition, Dodsley, 1784.]reply
Cricket02 Yes, good idea. Lately I'm finding articles nominated for deletion with just minutes of its creation. To me that is biting the newcomers. I'll agree there are plenty that don't belong, but there are many that need saving too.
? Cricket0201:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)reply
DGG (
talk)
04:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - The key is balance, and willingnesss to improve articles--if everyone participated in one Afd and fixed one article and found one hopeless article to delete, we could really improve WP.reply
Dhartung |
Talk21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) This is a lot of what I do already. I vote delete on things, but many times salvageable articles are deleted just because nobody cares to try. Nominators who fail to do research first are only part of the problem.reply
DreamFocus18:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC) When reason fails, societies break apart, and civilization crumbles around them. We must strive to stop the insanity here and now, not just to put out the fires others keep starting, but to rebuild what they have destroyed, restoring what was lost to us, so that the wikipedia can once again be what it was meant to be. Wiki means "casual", it an encyclopedia where anyone can edit, and add to as they see fit, without fear of overjudgmental people picking apart every little thing they do, and trying to erase it if it isn't just perfect by their standards.reply
DRosenbach(
Talk |
Contribs)18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) It all began when one of my own articles,
Bananagrams, was nominated for deletion about 8 minutes after I created it. I knew it had merit, so I saved it and made
this userbox. Then I happened upon an article with a rescue tag -- I was wondering if there was something like this?reply
Fuzheado |
Talk - I suppose I'm obliged to sign up as my blog post instigated much of this. :) There is too much emphasis on pruning, filtering and destroying, but without the cooperative community discussion, {{sofixit}} culture, and a roll up your sleeves attitude.
Germanname1990 (
talk)
22:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I have always been passionate about helping others for good causes, no matter how significant these causes are. This is another cause I am eager to help out on. Even if there are topics that I have no knowledge of, I'll do what I can to fix them.reply
Gnangarra - notability is a corner stone of Wikipedia it cannot be ignored.
Hdt83Chat 09:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC) I've come across several AFDs where the article was in bad shape but the subject was notable. A good way to help improve Wikipedia. --
Hdt83Chat09:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Hotspot I'm in, you don't know how many of my images have been removed. Without images things can be harder to understand and then you have to go on a search engine and find an image yourself which can be hard for something that isn't popular like a video game or a show.(
Hotspot) 12:06 PM September 20? 21? 2009 (UTC)
Jim Miller I didn't even know there was a project for something I've been doing anyway. With that nifty life preserver logo, what else can I do but jump right into the pool!
Jim Miller (
talk)
20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Kitty53 (
talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC) I am so glad something like this exists! I want to save articles on Wikipedia! I don't know why such good articles get deleted, but if I should ever bump into an article that needs our help, I will be there when I have time! I mean, those poor, innocent articles, they deserve to exist on Wikipedia! I wish I was part of this eversince I joined Wikipedia. All that should be deleted are articles that view nonsense, and accidental creations! Articles that view very little info should be expanded, not deleted! Very small articles/stubs should just be expanded enough to stay on Wikipedia for all eternity!
Kitty53 (
talk)
04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Laualoha11:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC) I can help with whatever is needed, as time & drama permits, but can especially try to help with minority articles that are having a hard time being understood as valid. Do my best, anyway.reply
Marshmir08:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Great idea to rescue the articles from deletion, as Wikipedia is knowledge center, and every article is knowledge, deleting article is not good job and its very easy to simply delete articles, but hard is to keep it undelete and improve it by collecting and assembling information about article.reply
Mohamed Magdy (
talk)
13:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC) - Very nice idea of course, I have always been thinking of it that way, when you see something broken you should attempt to fix it, before you destroy it completely. Thank you.reply
Neil? - I am a deletionist, and will happily delete all kinds of rubbish. But topics that should be on Wikipedia but the article is so crappy it needs rescuing from AFD must be saved. I've recsusitated a
few myself from AFD by improving them.
Quistisffviii (
talk)
08:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I believe people should be checking for vandalism, not locating an article to delete. I also believe that notability is in the eye of the beholder.reply
roy<sac>
Talk! .oOo.
21:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Deleted Content is lost content. The destruction of world libraries, archives and encyclopedias are the primary cause for the losses in knowledge for mankind.reply
Sandman30s (
talk)
18:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC) I stopped adding new articles when my video game articles were deleted. To hell with notability. What about 'the sum of all knowledge of mankind' in the founder's words?reply
SilkTork *
YES!10:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I'm in. I have been doing this already, so it's good to know there's a collective to share ideas and alert each other to articles that need attention.reply
Sjc09:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - Long overdue. Wikipedia is not paper
[1] - keep that link to hand, it is the number one weapon we have in our arsenal against the rapine depredations of the deletionists.reply
Smartcom5(
Talk ?) Glad to see someone who is also dedicated ! ?-User too ! Lock'n load guys. :-)
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Why? Pretty much exactly what DGG said above. This Wikigroup should not (and presently does not seem to be) an rabid inclusionism force, but rather a balancing factor against the entropy of extremist deletionism, which is clearly rampant.reply
Sotonfc4life (
talk)
21:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Encyclopedias are supposed to be the font of knowledge, the internet is supposed to share that knowledge, and Wikipedia should be integral to that. Deleting articles like hungry sharks eating fish is counter productive to those aims.reply
T L Miles (
talk)
00:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Per user "MQSchmidt" (120, above). Know something of West African History, and France and UK 19th century history, some football (soccer) and leftist stuff.reply
ThaddeusB (
talk) 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Guess I should probably make this official now. :) In addition to being an editor who tries to save articles, I am also an admin &
bot operator. As such, I am willing to help out in admin/BOT areas when the need arises (time permitting of course). --
ThaddeusB (
talk)
15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Tim Vickers05:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) - Drop me a note when biology or medicine articles are nominated as having questionable accuracy/notability. I'll be happy to look into it.reply
Trackinfo (
talk)
05:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Good idea. I've already rescued and sourced several hundred "unsourced BLPs" that are at the heart of the current debate. I've been quite outspoken about the unnecessary deletion of articles, so I may as well be part of your group.reply
VeraladeramaneraTC Hi, I want to join ARS because I want to rescue articles on Wikipedia that have been AfD nominated because they lack "Encyclopedic info". That is not a good reason to Nominate them for deletion, no matter how little info they have! The only time an AfD nomination is really legitimate in my opinion is when they lack encyclopedic topics!
Verbalchat08:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC) If it's worth keeping then keep, but sometimes a fresh start is better. I do not support canvassing, and hope this group moves away from it.reply
Zeborah06:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC) - I've been trying to do this sort of thing in an off-and-on way for a while; hopefully being part of a group will spur me on to do it some more.reply
A20anna One of the things I think that can be improved is when a new person like me joined, I was immediately accused of something called sockpuppet. I was very hurt by that, and the funny thing was I did not even know what it was! They just posted this huge horrible sign on my talk page. I joined because of a few issues on page. So I will be a big defender of the Rescue Squad and its efforts.
Happy Editing Love, Anna (
talk)
05:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Alwayssoma (
talk)
21:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Very interested in finding good sources and keeping, not deleting, articles whenever there is any hope. Keen on biographies and literature, arts and entertainment projects.reply
BrandlandUSA (
talk) 1 February 2011 (UTC) One can always build on knowledge but if you delete it, it goes BYE BYE and can't be the foundation for something useful.
Dc7612:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - Hi. I just saw the article about forming of this discussion group on
Signpost, and I would like to join in. My reasons for joining are the ones presented above e.g. by DGG and Fuzheado. I suggest to start something like "AfR" (Articles for Rescue), where any person can nominate articles. The idea, as I understand, would be 1) to have a short discussion about what can be done with the particular article to improve it (or to recongnize it was unsalvageble), with specific propositions followed by 2) concrete actions ("I can do this. Here I am doing it. Now could you plz do that.") and 3) a final "vote" to see if the article has reached a level where it can be moved to mainspace.reply
DHowell22:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Sounds like a great idea. I'm also thinking of starting an "Article Adoption Agency" for articles which are useful and/or interesting (which as we all know won't
save them from deletion) which get deleted despite the best efforts to rescue them, to find another
wiki home to which they can be
transwikied.reply
Random Fixer Of Things (
talk)
18:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC) I am amazed by how many good (or potentially good) articles fall foul of PROD, SPEEDY and AFD and it seems that people not getting involved is what allows this to happen - "The only thing necessary for deletion is for good men to do nothing..."'reply
Legoland12342 (
talk)
18:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I was originally planning on joining the ARS about two or three months ago, but after reading about the lawsuit that's come about because of Wikipedia Art, I decided it was time to get off my duff and do something.reply
Naglfar or Gleipnir? (
talk)
21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Good, an organization that is opposed to throwing out stub or small articles. My thanks. Great articles don't just appear, they are formed and edited up to great articles.reply
Neon5162 (
talk)
18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC) one of my articles was deleted for supoosidly advertiseing a gov program all i was doing was typing in what it offerd what was thier how many people it could hold stuff like that. Then thiers the fact that i hated the place and wouldnt let my worst enemy go there if i could help it.reply
Tycoon24 (
talk)
09:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Helping Wikipedia keep noteworthy encyclopedic information from deletion. The more I learn, the better at it I'll become.reply
Jreferee - I am particularly interested in AfD'd articles where there is a huge disagreement over whether a topic is notable and nobody takes any steps to actually reference the article. In other words, where everyone so eager to talk the talk, I'm willing to walk the walk.