Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fancine. International Fantastic Film Festival Of the University of Málaga


 * 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   no consensus. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fancine. International Fantastic Film Festival Of the University of Málaga

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Terrible machine translation of es:Festival de cine fantástico de Málaga. This article and/or its spanish counterpart show all the signs of being a copyvio, however I've been unable to find the source. The article's creator,, clearly has a conflict of interest with this topic. Snotty Wong  chatter 23:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. As Snottywong stated, the article is a shoddy machine translation.  It reads like an advertisement for the festival, and there is definitely a conflict of interest. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark!  14:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete  (changed to keep below per issue being shown as an addressable concern) or rewrite and source a very poor transwikification from the es.Wikipedia.  It seems the author, in wanting to duplicate his existing work on the equivalent article in the Spanish Wikipedia, for inclusion in the English Wikipedia, did not do a proper transwikification of his work from there to here.  Open question: If the same author makes nearly identical contributions to different language versions of Wikipedia, is such duplication of his contributions across other language Wikis considered to be a copvio of his own unique original contributions under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that, but this article appears to be a copyvio of a non-wiki source. More specifically, the spanish version of this article appears to be the copyvio, and this is a bad translation of that copyvio.  I don't have any evidence of that, but it sure looks like that is the case.  It has a subsection called "CONTENTS" with a table of contents, large unwikified lists, very few wikilinks, etc.  I've been unable to find the original source for the spanish article on the internet, which is why I couldn't speedy delete it.    Snotty Wong   spout 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... we both do agree that as written and sourced, the article does not best serve the project... but rather than guess at copyvio because of format, my own sense is that the original author at es.Wikiedia simply tried to create an article there that, in style, emulates many existing en.Wikipedia articles on festivals and awards. As actual content is different, the only thing then "copied" is a style and format... but yes... badly.  Perhaps we might even simply redirect the title to University of Málaga as it is rare that a university's film festival would be more noteworthy than an independent's... but then and strangely, THAT new article is woefully lacking in content and itself would greatly benefit from expansion and sourcing... any expansion and sourcing. European Wikipedians, you listening?  The University of Málaga aticle needs your help.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Neither bad writing or suspected copyright violations are grounds for deletion. The question that has to be answered is whether this film festival is notable or not.-- Pink Bull  19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No argument from me.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't say I fully agree. I've seen a lot of copyvios, and this one shows every classic sign.  Just because the source isn't internet accessible doesn't mean it's not a copyvio.  Also, per Translate, "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing."  If we intepret that literally (and there is no reason not to), then that statement is equivalent to "Unedited machine translation articles should be deleted."    Snotty Wong   squeal 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Actually appears to be sufficiently notable, and many more in Spanish sources,  - and I did copyediting on it to make its content less odd.   IMHO. when faced with a poor machine translation, simple editing is preferable to just saying "it is worse than nothing."  Note that WMF has officially endorsed such "poor machine translations" for some projects.  Collect (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agreed. Fixing problems is far more condusive to building an encyclopedia then an un-needed deletion. That User:Collect was able to begin fixing, means it is do-able and does then not merit deletion simply because it had not previously been done.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:00, 13 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.
 * 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.