Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Source of the river of Svijaga

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The result was nomination withdrawn below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Source of the river of Svijaga[edit]

Text looks like it has been translated badly using an automated translator. As such, it may represent copyright infringement. This AfD is necessary to decide if the material should be retained. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now and re-write. First of all , the nom prodded this for deletion within one minute of its creation [1]. Unless an article is an obvious hoax, blatant advertising or plain trolling, instant deletion attempts are disruptive to the improvement of articles. The nom's copyright charge is speculative and there's no evidence to support it. This looks like a valid geographical topic. It also looks like a translation copy from the Russian Wikipedia article that was created by the same author (I see somebody is trying to speedy delete that article). A bad translation from foreign language Wikipedia article is not a copyright violation. Even a good translation wouldn't be either. I say give a little time for editors to improve the article. --Oakshade (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - I have edited and sought to improve the grammar, but I do not speak Russian, and cannot translate various plant names. The names of companies need to be transliterated. There may be no English term for some of the plants named. If so, the correct "Latin" botanical name should be used. As a matter of practice, applying PROD or AFD (and worse still an admin deleting) within a few minutes of creation should be forbidden: WP needs more good editors and this practice is not a good way of recruiting them. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept these criticisms of the practices I employed here. On reflection, I was over-zealous - it is not much of an excuse, but I was still becoming accustomed to some of the more intricate details of the policies here. I think I am a little more aware of them now, and have developed a better understanding since I nominated this article. I apologise unreservedly for this overzealousness, and my latest recent changes work hopefully reflects my improved understanding. If anyone wants to make any further comments to me about this, please drop a note on my talk page. As with the other articles I nominated by this author, there is no case to answer in AfD, so I withdraw my nomination. - Fritzpoll (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2008 (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.