Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Gravy


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Claudia Gravy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can this machine translation be saved? Removed it from the CSD queue, evil deletionist that I am, because I think it possible it might be salvageable. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Should be deleted per WP:DENY. Created by a prolific sock who is thriving on these.  Can then be re-written from scratch when there is more material.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it clearly can be saved by someone with dual fluency in Spanish and English. (Any editors who could fix it are cordially invited to examine the 3,583 articles at Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review where Spanish-speaking volunteers are badly needed and decide whether fixing this particular article is the best use of their time.)  After a long discussion here, the community reached consensus (a) to prevent new articles of this sort being created using an edit filter and (b) as a special measure, to implement a temporary speedy deletion criterion, WP:CSD, to enable their speedy removal.  A number of editors, of whom DuckDuckStop was probably the most prolific, exploited an accidentally-introduced loophole in the translation software to mass-generate unreliable machine translations of articles from foreign languages and we're now about six months into the cleanup effort.  The situation is analogous to the Neelix redirects, where a small number may be fixable but it's simply cheaper, in terms of editor time, to begin again from scratch.  Delete, without prejudice to a re-creation as a non-automatically-generated article by an editor in good standing.— S Marshall'  T/C 17:52, 18 December 2016 (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.