Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Church of Bremgarten


 * 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. Notability is not in question, and the poor machine translation has since been reverted and the stub expanded somewhat. Nobody seems to advocate deletion of the article in the present state.  Sandstein  15:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

City Church of Bremgarten

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This "article" is an extremely sloppy machine translation from German to a language that somehow resembles English. Almost every sentence is incomprehensible gibberish, for example: "The double-sided to two meters and widened as the nave nave is formed adjacent to the enclosed on three sides high choir." As the German original is a featured article this can be considered a linguistic rape (sorry for the harsh words). Rewriting this "article" to something worthwile would take hours. As nobody bothered to that in the last one and a half years, it's highly unlikely that anyone will try to save the "article" in the foreseeable future. Better put it on the guillotine. Voyager (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep If the current translation is deemed irreparable, rollback to the stub version before the bad translation job: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_Church_of_Bremgarten&oldid=539072585]. The primary reference from the German article should be added, so its not unreferenced: Arnold Nüscheler, Gotteshäuser der Schweiz – historisch-antiquarische Forschungen, Viertes Heft, Gebr. Karl & Nikolaus Benziger, Einsiedeln, 1884. Perhaps someone will be inspired to do a real translation. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Before the bad translation there was exactly one sentence and the picture. If we decide to keep the article someone should definetively add some more relevant informations. If nobody does that its with the arguments of Voyager not worth keeping the article. Somehow or other we should undo the bad translation. 2A02:1205:5010:78C0:ECA5:4D5D:D997:7E83 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * delete the current machine translation is imho unacceptable. A new shorter article or stub with some basic information can be created after the deletion. If in the meantime somebody reset the article to the earlier version and extended that one or simply replaced the current machine translation by new short article, then that would be acceptable as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * delete / back to translation request. I created this article in 2009 as a translation request stub per Translation ("create the article on English Wikipedia as a stub article, explaining or defining the subject of the article in a sentence or two; then immediately tag your stub article with a translation template"). It didn't work, nobody translated the (very good) German article into English; instead, four years later this completely muddled, incomprehensible machine translation was added. The machine translation would need a total rewrite from the first to the last sentence, so I propose to remove it - I don't feel strongly about the article itself; as the translation request wasn't successful for years, it seems to me it could be deleted as well. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've tagged and reported this for attention at WP:Pages needing translation into English, which also has a section for bad translations. Notability does not appear to be in question, so there's no point in losing the article because someone botched the expansion (which is surprisingly common). I'd fix it up myself, but I prefer not to work on churches; if nobody does, I advocate undoing the addition and returning the "expand from German" template. There is no deadline. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, I added a ref demonstrating notability and commented out the bad translation, so that now it can be removed or rewritten (or hopefully both).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Yngvadottir and it Passes WP:N.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As a side note: I'm actually not sure that the article should be named City Church of Bremgarten. When I created it as a translation request back in 2009, I just translated "Stadtkirche Bremgarten" into English (another translation would be "Bremgarten City Church"), but if there's no established English name, maybe it should remain at its German name Stadtkirche Bremgarten? Also, I'm not sure whether to call Bremgarten a "city" or a "town", often a difficulty when translating from German, as German Stadt can mean both and there is no clear distinction. Bremgarten got city rights in medieval times and it has a historic city center, so it is considered a traditional "Stadt" and not a "Dorf" (village) despite having fewer than 10'000 inhabitants, but I'm really not sure whether to choose "city" or "town"... it's rather small, a Kleinstadt, which suggests town, but then its historical status also may suggest city. Sorry for the digression... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To the extent that we have any standard, it should probably be St. Nicholas' Church, Bremgarten, which neatly avoids the need to translate stadt. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. We generally regard buildings with the kind of heritage status possessed by this church as fairly automatically notable anyway, but a quick look at the corresponding German article shows it to be well-referenced - even if the idiot who did the previous machine translation just pushed the text through Google and effectively left the references and illustrations behind. We need a proper translation, with the references and illustrations included - but until then, this stub will do. PWilkinson (talk) 14:35, 25 August 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.