Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edifício São Vito


 * 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 and stubify.  — fetch ·  comms   01:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Edifício São Vito

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per Translation and a contested PROD. This article appears to be a machine translation from the Português Wikipedia with no included references and no notability established within the contents of the English article. After waiting close to a week, it appears no effort has been made to clean up the translation by hand and, per the above policy, consensus on Wikipedia is that machine translations are worse than nothing. ialsoagree (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * REGULAR DELETE.  Lacks proper sources.  Could care less about the rest.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 20:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources. IamtheLOL (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and reduce to stub until in can be properly translated. It has received very significant coverage from reliable sources like Época, O Globo  and Agora São Paulo.--Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would actually agree with you if it weren't for the link I cited in the AFD nomination regarding translations, and a lack of sourced notability for the English Wikipedia. It's already consensus that a machine translation is worse than nothing, and after a week the article has seen no one willing to contribute useful edits to the translation. In addition, how can notability be derived from the sources you claim for an article on the English Wikipedia, when the sources are not in English and no one is translating them? If someone was willing to go through the translation or even cut parts out that did not translate well, as well as establish and source the notability of the article's subject in English, I'd be willing to support a keep. Until then, I think the article really is worse than nothing. ialsoagree (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (And just to add, having the article deleted isn't really a loss. It appears to be nothing more than a machine translation of the article on the Português Wikipedia, everything there could easily be machine translated again if someone was willing to put in the above work). ialsoagree (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The "English" in "English Wikipedia" refers to the language in which articles are written, not th elanguage of the sources on which articles are based. There is no requirement in either the verifiability policy or notability guideline for sources to be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources exist to establish notability of this building.   Snotty Wong   prattle 22:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you not read my vote? What about the reliable sources I cited?  If you feel this should be deleted for the reasons Ialosagree states, fine.  But don't state "No reliable sources exist" when links to reliable sources have been provided.--Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and stubify per Oakshade. While a machine translation of the full article may be undesirable, I think it's equally undesirable (and perhaps smacks of systemic bias) to eliminate this article entirely when there are so many reliable sources in Portuguese (and maybe a few in English). Having an English stub would accomplish at least three things: it provides English readers with at least a minimal amount of information about this very interesting subject, along with some photos from Commons and an interwiki link to the full article in Portuguese; it gives editors an incentive to dig up more sources in English; and it alerts Portuguese-capable editors to the need to expand the article. The fact that this hasn't happened in a week is no reason to assume it won't happen; there's no deadline for this sort of stuff.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and stubify per above. The sources provided should resolve the notability issues, and there are better ways to address the machine translation issues than outright deletion. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:59, 7 August 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.