Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Ugalde

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Ugalde

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tagged this article for deletion under CSD X2. The CSD tag was removed on the basis that the article is "improvable" -- which isn't the point, I'm afraid. In 2016 the community reached consensus that these articles should be deleted because the machine translations are fundamentally unreliable, and there are 3,603 of them, each of which can only be cleaned up by an editor with dual fluency in the source and target language. Because there are so many of these, it's taken me three years since that 2016 discussion even to patrol this article -- and it's a BLP. Will the community please authorise its deletion? —S Marshall T/C 14:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the CSD tag. I had looked at the article, and while it would be reasonable to delete a machine-translated article if it was garbled nonsense, that is not the case with this article. I also don't agree that deleting it is necessary because the translations can only be cleaned up by editors with "dual fluency in the source and target language". There are editors on English Wikipedia who have that fluency, and for those of us who don't, apart from machine translators like Google Translate, there are online dictionaries which allow searching of words and phrases to find nuances. Collaborative editing means that we are not reliant on individual editors to translate or improve articles. Also, if speedy deletions are being based on a decision about machine translations made 3 years ago, I think that decision should be revisited - translation tools are improving rapidly. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it may be worth having a fresh RFC about WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, so we don't do this again going forward. The translation we're talking about was performed in 2016, and there's clear community consensus that as of 2016, raw machine translations were worse than useless. The way to make this BLP keepable is for a human editor with dual fluency in English and Spanish to confirm that this text means the same as this text.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not see as the aim of improving machine translations just confirming that an English version matches another language version of an article. The sources in the article should be checked and the info confirmed and appropriately cited, and additional sources could probably be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be an excellent alternative but it's not required now. The minimum now is to verify the translation so I can take it off the list of 3,603 articles that are subject to summary deletion in accordance with the consensus I previously linked.—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs a bit of cleanup and a couple more refs wouldn’t do any harm but I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with it. Mccapra (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've done a bit of editing on the article and added one source, so far. I did not think that it was worse than useless - in fact, I don't think it can have been a raw machine translation even at the start, or there would have been more pronouns of the wrong gender, and no spelling mistakes like 'allso'. There were some infelicitous translations, but I have seen far worse on English Wikipedia. As it was, it provided useful information; now, I hope it reads more naturally. It could still be improved (and I would still like to find more sources), but these are not reasons for deletion. If the 3,603 articles had been immediately deleted in 2016 following the RFC, there would be nothing to debate, but this article (and I imagine others) has been edited in the meantime, had sources added, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak Spanish?—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can read Spanish well enough to know if this is a decent translation of the es.wiki article. Mccapra (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I withdraw the AFD nomination. Please edit the article talk page to indicate that you accept responsibility for its accuracy as of this timestamp. —S Marshall T/C 23:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's enough coverage and the article is not bomb-worthy. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2019 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.