Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daphné Bürki

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. Also stubbed. Should not be re-expanded except with human-written content. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daphné Bürki[edit]

[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)

On reviewing this article, I note that the text is a lightly-obfuscated raw machine translation of the French-language version of the article. Wikipedia's longstanding view on machine translations is set out at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. Please will the community authorise the article's deletion? You should consider that this lady may well be notable, and that WP:MACHINETRANSLATION applies despite her likely notability. —S Marshall T/C 12:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 12:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable French sources exist (including some already in the article). Trillfendi (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage. The nominator has a good standard of French according to his userbox so why not just fix it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because dropping a raw machine translation into en.wiki takes seconds, but repairing a raw machine translation takes a long time to do right; and it's always easier to retranslate from scratch than to repair. That's why we have this longstanding rule that a raw machine translation is worse than a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 06:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question. If there are concerns about machine translation, why not just stubbify as an ATD instead? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article's been re-created as a raw machine translation a few times now, and I think it's on someone's bucket list of Articles Wikipedia Should Have. I'm trying to force the next version to go through AFC for quality control, as I'm sure any stubbification would be reverted.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or (failing that) userfy to my userspace per WP:BLP. With reasonably high-profile public figures like this, we need to be sure we're getting things absolutely right, and it's not clear that the translation here is doing that. However, I think it's almost certain that the subject is notable, so if the concern is accuracy, why not send it to draft? That way, we can keep what is reasonable to keep and get rid of the bad machine-translated bits. And if S Marshall's concern is a lack of AfC quality control, draftifying seems a fair solution. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are reliable sources available and some already exist in the article but the major concern here is the translation. I will like to fix it but I'm handicapped here because I do not understand French. Northern Escapee (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubbify or (as an alternative) Draftify to allow clean-up. If notability isn't in question, deletion shouldn't be happen (in the majority of cases; there are of course exceptions such as TNT and copyvio). I agree machine translations shouldn't remain untouched, but I 1) don't see convincing evidence that a good stuffification won't stick, and 2) if not, draftifying to allow clean-up can occur. Also, where's the repeated recreation? Looking at the logs, it's only been re-created once, and there's also no evidence that one person has been repeatedly re-creating it against consensus. Of course, It's possible that I missed something, in which case I will reconsider my !vote. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:09, 30 September 2020 (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.