Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altenberg Publishing

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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altenberg Publishing[edit]

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

Unsourced barely intelligible machine translation, the parts which are understandable do little to assert notability, and there are no sources on the pl:wiki article which could be used. In the unlikely scenario that someone wanted to write a proper article about, having this current article to work with would probably hinder them more than it would help Jac16888 ^Talk 20:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Altenberg Publishing was a major historical publishing house in Poland from 1880 until 1934. It would have been great to have it here. However, our new entry is only a mechanical copy-paste job from machine translation by Google translate. Word for word from Polish Wikipedia, mistakes and all. However, there also was a discussion on meta regarding Google translate and the consensus was that the coyright lies with the person "pressing the button" provided he had the right to do a derivative work, which means that we can have it here. Personally, I really don't like fixing someone else's shoddy job, but I will try (one step at a time). Poeticbent talk 04:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My suggestion would be to WP:Blow it up and start over, this time using human translation. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 03:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. The thing is, I already started fixing it (i.e. using "human" language in place of garbled mumbo-jumbo). A lot of what remains however, is still incomprehensible. Please, give me another week, 'cause I'm bussy right now. Poeticbent talk 13:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 03:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm loathe to eradicate historical material such as this, particularly given that there is editing ongoing. IAR Keep. Revisit this in six months if it still offends thee... Carrite (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable, and has been c/e to resemble a decent article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:48, 5 September 2012 (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.