Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (5th nomination)

< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. WaltCip-(talk) 12:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron

edit
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​
All prior XfDs for this page:

[withdrawn] 

Dronebogus (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- this is probably premature given the discussion still ongoing at ANI, and might give the appearance of being spiteful. But if you really want to go ahead with this then I would advocate not to delete but to mark historical given the lack of activity among all but a handful of members who (or so emerging consensus at the ANI suggests) are just using it to misbehave and peddle garbage. Closing admin, I don't even know if that should be considered a formal !vote. Reyk YO! 12:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's no consensus reached at the ANI thread yet so I don't think it's apropriate to have the discussion ongoing in two separate places. Also, comments like this aren't appropriate. NemesisAT (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:POINTY. Some people who were upset someone disagreed with them in a past AFD have cherry picked examples from the past years. Some of the examples mentioned were never listed anywhere ARS, and had nothing to do with it, just had one person who is actively in it participate, or which had multiple ones of us there because most of us follow the list Wikiproject. Others mentioned how bad it was years ago, but isn't like that now. So, Dronebogus starts Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_is_getting_problematic yesterday, and instead of letting it continue decides to rush and nominate this for deletion discussion [1] with the message Feel free to participate (or in the case of Andrew, DF, Lightburst, and Thirteen, drop by and spam “KEEP” ad nauseam). Constant pointless accusations of that. Please show difference to prove this is a common thing, please don't cherrypick and misrepresent things. Dream Focus 12:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m not being spiteful, I’m just exasperated with this project and its core userbase’s behavior and want to put a long-overdue end to this nonsense. But this is clearly going to turn into an even worse disaster so I’m withdrawing effective immediately. I’m sorry for the inappropriate comment on the rescue list, that was largely me just getting angry with Andrew for his weird “humor” and mocking of my username. Dronebogus (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (edit conflict) The nominator says fairly clearly that the nomination is improper because doing it right would be "incredibly tedious". Note that the nominator has not notified the creator of the discussion. For example, admin NorthAmerica1000 did much of the detailed work on the project's pages. And the project's membership should be notified but that is huge and so that would be a big job too. As there have been multiple unsuccessful nominations before, it seems unlikely that this would have a different result and so the community's time should not be wasted again. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete (or mark historical). I've been reading through the concurrent ANI thread as it's been unfolding and what strikes me most is the redundancy and ideological bent of the project. This isn't about behaviour, but a project predicated on assuming that one outcome in a process should be pursued as the default strikes me as unhelpful, and if the primary editors involved wish to continue working as they have there really is no need for a central project to enable that. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Most projects assume a default outcome as their objective. For example, I have lately been doing some work for the Women in Green project. The idea there is to get more articles about women to GA status. That is clearly a positive and specific objective. But, of course, this is not a rubber stamp exercise. I have been doing due diligence by making a detailed review. In this I have been using my skill to dig up sources which the nominator had not found or read and this is quite like what happens at AfD. I'm hoping that we will be able to improve the article and get it to GA but it's not a sure thing because I'm following the process in good faith. The nay-sayers constantly fail to AGF about such activity. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_(5th_nomination)&oldid=1051757846"