Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelius Anckarstierna


 * 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The result was   Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn with no delete vote standing. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cornelius Anckarstierna

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a near-nonsensical machine-translation from an article in the Swedish Wikipedia about a Swedish admiral. It has now remained in nearly its original state for a month. In my view this type of contribution should be discouraged, and credit for starting the page should be given to whoever eventually makes half an effort to write an article, rather than just taking a foreign article and running it through Google Translate. There are enough people who read Swedish and write decent English around for someone to write a proper article eventually. However, rather than completely erasing it, I would suggest moving this to User:Waase/Cornelius Anckarstierna in order to encourage the user who posted it to continue working on it and repost it in a non-gibberish version. --Hegvald (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not all bad translations can be blamed on computers. Some can be blamed on human translators who overestimate their command of the target language. If the topic is notable (and it appears to be), this is a case for cleanup rather than deletion. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out at Articles for deletion/Olof Strömstierna, a Swedish-speaker will immediately recognize the articles I nominated for deletion today as a machine translations. --Hegvald (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  – Eastmain (talk • contribs)  09:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article is bad, and the subject is not particularly notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not an issue here. Plenty of sources are available:, , , , etc. I'll try to rewrite the article.  The left orium  16:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewrite is now done.  The left orium  19:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sourcing seems to have some issues (a young-adult book and a later-published contemporary source claimed to be in Swedish when it actually seems to be in Danish -- I can't access the text in Google Books to check), but the article has still been substantially improved and I'll now withdraw my nomination. But if I understand the policies correctly, I don't think I can close this discussion myself, because of OpenFuture's "delete" vote. --Hegvald (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm changing it to neutral. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (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.