Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashkir rebellion (1704-1711)


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Bashkir rebellion (1704-1711)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

TNT: This must be MT from Russian -- at which I am an absolute beginner, but even I can see that in "1704-1706 gg." the 'gg' is an abbreviation for "Years". No human would make quite the mistake of leaving them as gs. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be preserved

Perhaps there are errors in grammar and spelling. The article presents some encyclopedic value. It should be preserved. Yours sincerely, Ayratayrat


 * The first paragraph at least is identical to the Google translate "translation" of WP:ru, except that the spaces before commas have been removed. It would be kinder to suggest to the reader to put the Russian version through Google translate, in the faint hope that it might actually get better. There are not "errors in grammar and spelling", the output is unmitigated garbage, which can be reproduced at the click of a button. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is probably easier to write an article from scratch than to copyedit this machine translation piece.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete this incomprehensible dump. Otherwise one might upload all content of the Russian Wikipedia, using a bot and the Google Translate tool. P.S. User:Superzohar generates loads of pages on a daily basis and fills them with MT gibberish, seemingly without bothering to read the result. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Preserve- I'm very much in favour of preserving. It's true it has mistakes, and machine translator was used to create this article, but the goal of Wikipedia is collecting and sharing world knowledge. And it was an event in history, its not a legend. So one can put template that the article is badly writte, but its bad to delete it. If someone wishes to improve it he is welcome of course, but deleting is not a good solution in my view. Superzohar [[Image:Red star.svg|13px]] Talk 14:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Scores of pages generated by blatant machine translation is not an improvement. Any bot can do it. This unreadable rubbish litters the main space for years. And you show no signs of remorse, let alone mending your ways. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable so it shouldn't be deleted, it should be cleaned up (ie. made a stub or whatever). I am not seeing obvious MT problems it reads clearly enough. It needs improvements but not outright deletion. -- Green  C  18:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You really see no MT problems? You mean you can understand what: "According to some sources, Bashkir Emperor swore again only in 1725." means? Can you explain to the rest of us? Here is a Russian sentence (from WP:ru, of course): по некоторым данным, башкиры вновь присягнули императору лишь в 1725 году. The preceding quote is exactly what you get if you put this Russian sentence into Google translate. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That sentence is nonsensical, I went ahead and deleted it. Do you see anything else we can work on? -- Green C  19:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and cleaned up other stuff including deleting bits that were incomprehensible. I don't think the quality of this article is very good, but there it is, I can't justify deleting it since the topic is notable. -- Green  C  19:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So it's you who encourage machine translationists to keep churning out pages like Pereslavl's Sobor, Muscovite–Volga Bulgars war (1376), Vladimir's Sobor, Tver Uprising of 1327, Psekhako Ridge, etc, etc? "Khovan on behalf of the government promised to abolish requirements "pribylschikov" - what the heck is this? --Ghirla-трёп- 21:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a "machine translationists"-based AfD before today. Look if you don't like it just delete it down to a 2 sentence stub. Sometimes things are better than way anyway. Taking it to AfD is a waste of everyone's time since these are obviously notable topics. -- Green  C  23:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "The topic is notable so it shouldn't be deleted," - WP:TNT exists for a reason. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is hardly in need of TNT. The correlary to TNT is WP:PRESERVE which is an actual policy compared to TNT's essay status written in 2009 by one user. -- Green  C  03:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is a bad translation of an article from another WP, b ut certainly not so bad that it cannot be remedied. If the Russian WP thinks the subject notable, so should ther Englsih one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERLANGS. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is clearly notable. Being poorly written is not a good reason to delete an article, it is a reason to edit the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. And don't forget to "edit" all this stuff as well. P.S. Being poorly written and being utterly incomprehensible is not the same. --Ghirla-трёп- 05:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep While unrevised poor machine translations need to be firmly discouraged (probably to the extent of banning editors who produce them repeatedly) and while there are uses for trinitrotoluene, some editors do seem over-keen to use it even when other solutions are available and preferable - such as pruning the article back to the more salvageable bits (as User:Green Cardamom has done at least adequately in this case) or even to a two-line stub. I know others differ, but in languages I know slightly better than I do Russian and on topics where I have some faint idea of the background (as I do to a very limited extent here), I can actually find it easier to rewrite, usually at shorter length, even a machine translation as bad as this one was originally (though I've seen even worse) than try doing the translation from scratch. PWilkinson (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.