Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Large numbers of country relationships articles nominated for deletion in a short period of time

Lengthy discussion collapsed for navigation.}}

I see some of the articles have Rescue tags, and have been worked on, and plenty are there to have them saved. However is it possible to save all of them in time?

Some editors have nominated a vast number of these types of articles within a short time period.

In one of these articles, Algeria and Cyprus relations the president of one nation mentioned to the other his people wanted to reunite the countries. Now obviously, that makes it notable. I'm wondering how many other articles out there might be deleted, because of the fact that it is far easier to simply nominate something for destruction, instead of searching for some facts. Most of these articles I have seen thus far, are obviously worthy of keeping.

My case is this:

• Any relationship between two countries is notable.
• If you speak the language of either nation, you can easily search their newspapers, it highly unlikely that not a single notable event happened between them throughout their history.

So I'm asking for any who speak another language, to please look over this rather large collection of articles nominated, and briefly search for newspaper articles about them. It shouldn't take long to do. Dream Focus 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to talk to User:Marcusmax one of the more active new ARS members. He and I have worked on several of these articles.

There is: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations now. In which editors attempt to rewrite these articles.

This is the reason why WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE need to be enforced. 99.9% of the time these editors who put up articles for deletion make no effort to improve the article first. I could prove this easily with little research on my random day of deletions page, here: User:Ikip/AfD on average day, but I know it would persuade no one, as no amount of research has. Ikip (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you 100%, I am possibly starting to see these Afds violate WP:POINT, as some of the reasons for the afds are just trying to get the articles deleted without even checking for content. Me along with Ikip and a few others have rescued a fair amount of these articles, and I know for a fact that about 75% of these have verifiable material however many look right past it and before you know it a salvageable article is lost. Not only are these afds sometimes uncalled for but they are also harming the afd system. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

it is not WP:POINT and you're not assuming good faith here. I don't nominate most X-Y bilateral relation articles that I come across (although there are probably 100s if not over 1000 in existence) but I would say over 70% I've nominated have been deleted. those that have been saved have proven notable relations from sources. having said that I've also created about 6 new bilateral articles and plan to create more when I have the time. I strongly disagree that "Any relationship between two countries is notable." using some guidelines I've been using Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I never once mentioned you in particluar were arguing a point there are plenty of users who might be arguing a point. I am one of the most civil wikipedian's around and in no way am I blaming you nor any one person as arguing a point. It should be noted that I have taken, I believe 4 days off of wikipedia so I can remain a civil person as obviously some of these afds are turning me into somweone I don't want to be. So no hard feelings, Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 14:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. no hard feelings, I certainly think you are doing a good effort in AfD providing valid reasons for keep. Some (and it's a minority) editors are not backing their claims for keep with reliable sources. My goal is that we have a good concise set of X-Y country articles, but that does not mean all combinations. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with this rescue of the many country relations articles being proposed for deletion, and I also don't think you said any type of personal attack to anyone Marcusmax (some editors just happen to take things too personal). I'd be available to help out with any Spanish-language relations that might need verification; recently, I was able to find Spanish-language information that helped save the Peru-Bulgaria relations article that was about to die due to the lack of search that the people proposing and supporting the delete did.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User:MarshalN20, I am going to post the relevant portion of this message at:

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations

Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we please begin by killing three memes? First: no, not all bilateral relations are notable; that is well established by dozens of discussions already. Second: no, saying "sources might be out there in Swahili in a Mombasa warehouse or in Thai somewhere in Bangkok" doesn't help at all, and ignores the fact that the burden of proof is on "keep" voters to supply evidence of notability. Third: no, there is no one arguing for deletion of "all" such articles, just the ones lacking notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a flip side to those three statements Biruitorul. On the central discussion its been said that if consensus was there at least one would "support deleting all bilateral relations articles". As you say each time an AfD ends in deletion it establishes a precedent that makes further deletion easier to achieve. Yes the burden of proof is on those who want to keep these artilces and it takes a long time to search for sources especially when you know they're going to under close scruntiny. Counter wise its takes very little time to nominate large numbers of articles for deletion. This is why we need some kind of new guideline to help protect these entries, otherwise many will inevitably lost as its too much work to save them considering the rate they're being nominated at. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If potentially notable articles are being lost - a very big if indeed - recreating them at a later date is hardly an insurmountable challenge. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's much easier and considerate to our volunteer editors to have the foundation there to begin with rather than to have to keep starting over. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That statement assumes there's something worth expanding, which in the great majority of the cases that went through AfD, is not true. By that logic, nothing would ever get deleted, on the off-chance it might get improved "someday". - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Only libelous and copy vio materials should be deleted. Anything that can be verified through reliable sources, even if only enough for stub form are sufficient for a paperless encyclopedia, just as Britannica has the Micropedia and Macropedia volumes. So long as the information is factual and relevant to someone, it is worth keeping. A legitimate research question for people looking in a reference guide is "I wonder if X country has any relations with y country" and even if the article essentially only shows that the relationship is minor, it is still providing a valid service for our readership. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that's notable, can't it be covered in, say, "Diplomatic missions of..." articles? In other words, if there's nothing other than to say "X has relations with Y", surely we don't need separate articles for all the possible permutations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Even in that case, i.e. where it can be covered elsewhere, then we would merge and redirect. There is a convenience factor for our readers to have as many probably redirects as possible. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the "paperless" argument, another factor is that it is undesirable to have articles that no NPOV editor is watching in the long term. Unlike Britannica's Micropedia we generally don't lock a specific version of an article, so we need to be sure knowledgeable readers will read each article often enough to detect the introduction of doubtful or wrong material. IMO this isn't quite the same as notability. For example if Bulgaria has really maintained an Embassy in Luanda since 1976, I can accept there is/was something notable (at least from Bulgaria's point of view) about Angola–Bulgaria relations. But I find it hard to believe that the article will be sufficiently monitored in the decades to come. If anyone PRODed it in 2011, who would notice? - Pointillist (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding the "paperless" argument, or at least not in your final words. This is the Internet, and just as you are afraid that anybody could show up and edit an international relations article incorrectly, you can be sure that there will also eventually be someone who will fix the article either towards a better direction or simply put it back to the way it was. Things such as these could not happen in a long paper/book encyclopedia; if errors were found, it would take the next edition to fix them. It only takes the click of a button to fix them in the Internet.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

MarshalN20, I understand more tedious detail about collaborative version/verification issues than you would ever want to discuss. It's been an issue for intermittently connected data synchronization scenarios (e.g. in CRM and ERP) for well over a decade, and the solution is usually some sort of data quality team to review changes. In Wikipedia, that layer is provided informally by knowledgeable readers being able to read/correct articles, and slightly more formally by editors' watchlists. My point is that when an article is so obscure that neither of these models will correct errors reasonably quickly—much quicker than "eventually"—it can't be relied on and probably shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, even though it is in fact notable. - Pointillist (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Pointillist; let me also note that many of these articles fall afoul of WP:BTW, in that there's no place from which to link to them. Take, for instance, Bulgaria–Peru relations. Is there any article that could possibly link to this one? Of course not - it's destined to sit there in isolation, at least until a future AfD takes care of it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

See below, it is obvious that no reference is adequate enough for you Biruitorul. Ikip (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointillis, you make mention of a problem that has been around for "well over a decade," and yet you expect to fix this problem by massively deleting articles that are notable and important for an encyclopedia to pick? Like I mentioned earlier, I am sure that there are indeed certain articles that are not notable, but it's not all of them. Considerin the lack of research people proposing and supporting the AfDs give, this matter becomes further disgusting as a way to simply delete articles for the sake of allegedely "fixing a problem" that will continue to be rampant for several more decades. I understand your point, however, about the obscurity of certain articles, but, once again and at the stake of being redundant, not all of the x-y relations articles are obscure or pointless.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul, Pointillis only made "one" point (Not "Points"), and your obsession with the Bulgaria–Peru relations article is becoming a little bit worrying.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, please mind WP:NPA and focus on content, not contributors, and do not make false accusations. MarshalN20, you are free to worry - no one's stopping you. Bulgaria–Peru relations was, is and is destined to be rubbish; delenda est! - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good then, you're entitled to your opinion. I suppose that just as you know more about the Wikipedia policies than I do, you also know more about rubbish than I do.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Very questionable AfDs

Currently there are 77 country relationship articles up for deletion, posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations, put up for deletion by a handful of editors. There is absolutly no effort at WP:PRESERVE or WP:BEFORE in any of these articles.

User:LibStar admits above that "only 70%" of his AfDs are being deleted.

Biruitorul, despite disingeously saying

"If someone does find significant coverage for one or more of these pairings, I'll be glad to strike them out as that happens."[1]

...No matter how many references are provided Biruitorul never reconsiders his deletion. User:WilyD provided 36 references for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Uzbekistan relations and 15 references in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania – Saudi Arabia relations and Biruitorul dismissed them. He also calls an editor "disruptive",[2] another's edits "annoying and irrelevant "[3]

In addition, there is a JamesBurns type of sock involved in many of these article deletions. (I am contacting the editor who exposed JamesBurns. Maybe he can expose others)

A couple of issues:

1. Where can I report this to get results? WP:AFD will give me the regular response. WP:ANI maybe the same.
2. Are WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE just words? 99.9% of AFD nominators never follows this. How can WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE be enforced?
3. When does an editor cross the line between constructive editing and senseless deletion of other editors contriubtions?

I am really not interested in our two critical admins comments, but I will inevitably get them. Ikip (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please comment of content, not on contributors. You've shown no independent, significant coverage at that AfD (where I generously offered to strike entries for which you found sources); not assuming good faith on my part will not bolster your argument one bit. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling other editors "disruptive"[4] and another's edits "annoying and irrelevant "[5] is commenting on the content?Ikip (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, please stop hounding me - this is getting to be too much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The place to report it is in the AFD. The way to enforce WP:BEFORE is to do the work yourself, and WP:PRESERVE is already enforced by no consensus favoring keep. There is no "senseless deletion of other editors' contributions" line because it can't happen without forming a firm consensus to delete. If you want to defend something, the burden is on you to defend it with evidence.

Ultimately, this sort of article is why this project needs to exist, and rescuing them by improving the articles is laudable work. Poorly conceived, poorly executed, but potential notability. Remember, the job is to fix these articles so that they're useful to readers, not to make policy to ensure they aren't deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting editor has copy and pasted the same text in over 100 AfDs. Ikip (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been deleted twice by A_Man_In_Black. Ikip (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you canvassing people to come support you in your call to have an editor banned has been deleted. Thrice. WP:ARS is not your personal army. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as quick note, I don't think anyone could seriously regard the ARS as Ikip's "personal army" as the members of this group do not always agree with each other in AfDs; even I have argued to delete rescue templated articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

An issue we're facing recently is the mass nominating of clearly valuable articles. These bilateral relations articles are time consuming to improve – there will often be hundreds of results from searches for sources, but only a few of them will be suitable for use in the articles. We at the ARS have high standards for our work, we dont just dump sources on articles without carefully review and selection. As things stand we’re overwhelmed, especially as some of us only have limited wiki time. Ikip is right to raise these policy related issues, the encyclopaedia will suffer if valuable content keeps getting deleted because we dont have time to rescue all the worthy cases sent to AfD. A change to policy may be the only effective solution.

Also Man in Black, please stop deleting ikip's posts, we're quite capable of doing our own housekeeping. And please dont make false accusations against members of this project - no ones trying to get anyone banned that I can see, allthough it may be neccessary to pursue dispute resolution if certain administrators aparently hostile to this project dont stop throwing their weight around.FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Then save the ones you can, and the ones that can't be saved can trivially be undeleted when you do find something. The important work is not the fighting; the important work is the writing. If you want a whole slew of them for userspace, I'm game, as are dozens of admins. It's not like anything is lost forever, and there's no harm of offending the article creator because said creator is no longer with us. There's no failing to keep up, because most of the ones which are deleted have no useful information not contained in the title (and let me know the ones that do have useful info and I can undelete).

As for the rest, "we" includes me. This is not the place to advertise discussions of editor conduct. WP:RFC, WP:ANI, WP:AN, and WT:AFD are all more appropriate. I am hostile to attempts to use this project as a personal army, but eminently sympathetic to editing articles so that they don't suck. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with A Man in Black's removal of the notifications. The ARS is an a rescue squadron, and ought to be concerned with developing articles to an acceptable standard in a short space of time, not investigation matters internal to AfD, which is a separate project. We have enough issues with public perception as it is. Skomorokh 14:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:LibStar admits above that "only 70%" of his AfDs are being deleted I'm happy to admit that, I stand by my nominations are respect the final decision reached by the AfD process. Ikip, I feel that you have issues with the whole AfD process, perhaps you need to ask that the AfD process be totally revamped, I heard of one editor ages ago who believed there should be no deletion except in the case of hoaxes. where is the proof that "99.9% of AFD nominators never follows this [WP:BEFORE]" LibStar (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

|}

Motion to close Bilateral international relations thread

Opinions have been expressed and some good points raised. However there is both a task force and a centralized discussion where constructive input should be taken and possibly used;

• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations
• Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force

There is a very large number of these articles (hundreds, I believe) and a rough consensus was to not bundle multiples in one AfD. Ergo dozens will be flowing through and each will have it's own due consideration. Some may be tagged for rescue and when they appear this project will do what we can. If there is credible evidence of abuse by editor(s) AN or ANI is the most logical place if not WT:AFD. Also Wikipedia:Translators available may be able to help find/translate sources although I suggest that route as a cumbersome and slow solution.

I therefore propose we close this thread and direct those interested to invest energies in finding ways forward. -- Banjeboi 11:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support close. as nom. -- Banjeboi 11:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Polls, evil, etc. but I think we're done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Thirded - best that these are addressed by the specific taskforce mentioned by Benjiboi above: with a couple of hundred countries there are likely to be a lot more of these bitateral articles coming down the pipe. pablo_hablo. 12:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comemnt I feel it would fine to archive this early as better venues have been created for this issue and it is listed on the centralized discussion template at the top of this talkpage. If no objections I'll archive ina day or so. -- Banjeboi 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose that this is renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue, for naming consistency with all other WikiProjects. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• neutral I can be persuaded both ways. Ikip (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, after a bruising WP:ANI all day today posted by AMIB (because I posted a link here), I think that renaming would give the project more legitimacy. Other wikiprojects regularly post links to afds etc. on their talk pages, and no one seems to care. I really can be persuaded the other way, but I think it is a good idea for the project, and will blunt some of the criticism. How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Rescue Squadron? We wanted to get rid of "article" anyway, up above. Ikip (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• oppose Unlike many other projects we're not devoted to any one topic, our mission is to save valuable content for the encyclopaedia as a whole, so our unusual name seems appropriate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Being a collaborative enterprise in the Wikipedia namespace does not a WikiProject make. Skomorokh 16:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Using WikiProject banners kind of does, though. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  In form only. If it alleviates your worries, I've converted the header to a {{tmbox}}. Skomorokh 19:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds. Why don't we rename WP:AN to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Administrators Noticeboard? Because, like ARS, it's not a group of editors aligned to take care of one particular topic or issue, but an integral part of the maintenance of Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "an integral part of the maintenance of Wikipedia"? I never thought about it that way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Sure. Like WP:3O, it's a problem resolution service staffed by volunteers which doesn't need administrative tools to function. 3O deals with content disputes, ARS deals with articles nominated for deletion that at least one user believes are inclusion-worthy, by editing them to make them suck less. Also like 3O, ARS has no "to do" list, but reacts to issues as they are raised. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Unlike a Wikiproject, 3O has no ownership. There are people who regularly comment at 3O, but it doesn't have any members or maintainers. ARS, on the other hand, has a clear membership, coordination of efforts, group projects, etc., much as a Wikiproject does.

  How would you respond to this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  That the similarities between ARS and 3O (and similar maintenance efforts) outweigh the differences, which have been given WP:UNDUE weight in your characterization. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  NPOV doesn't really apply to policy discussions, heh. I'd be curious to know what your definition of a wikiproject is, and why ARS doesn't fit. My definition is a group of editors coordinating their efforts on articles to serve a common cause (in this case, improving articles up for AFD). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Something interesting I discovered... I'm not a member. Funny thing, I've done as much work for ARS as I have for 3O, which doesn't even have a membership list. Guess I haven't been that much of a joiner; that might color my viewpoint. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support makes sense, and "squadron" is a silly name that furthers the already bad perception of this group. Verbal chat 17:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  What bad perception? Article Rescue Squad is the place to be, and to be seen at! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Man. If ARS is the Studio 54 of Wikipedia I'm going to have to get a sequined shirt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for the "Squadron" in the name, I would have completely ignored the Talk Page message inviting me here. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The name is fine and there really isn't set rules on naming conventions. WAR (Wikiproject Article Rescue) is a terrible idea for an acronym for this or any Wikiproject is we aren't a battleground despite some editor's interest in such activities. We just recently had a discussion on renaming so it may may sense to review what went on there. -- Banjeboi 23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Benjobi. Also WP:WAR is already widely used. PhilKnight (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose due to what has already been said. I do have to comment, though, that the "Squadron discussion" held above had its bit of funny.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose There has been mainstream news coverage under (I assume) the current name, which means they think it's catchy. As for "bad perception of this group" above, that was written by someone involved in major deletionist editing of an article about which I've inquired below. Those who remember the deletionist "Spoiler police" squad of 2007 may consider an inclusionist 'Fire & Rescue' analogy squadron entirely appropriate. Milo 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This isn't a real WikiProject, and shouldn't pretend to be one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That's rather uncivil and unhelpful, perhaps striking through some of that would be more in keeping with our civility policies. -- Banjeboi 12:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose No real benefit, established name catchy, dynamic and known to all, unnecessary change for the sake of change. pablo_hablo. 16:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close and archive move discussion

• Seems this has run its course without consensus to move, unless there is strong objection I'd like to close and archive this thread. -- Banjeboi 03:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)