Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henri Hauser


 * 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 per WP:SK, an invalid deletion rationale "proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging" —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Henri Hauser

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inadequately sourced stub biography. I suggest that it be deleted to make way for Draft: Henri Hauser, which still needs a lot of work but is better than this stub. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The draft bio reads like a machine translation from French. Currently I disagree and would say the stub is superior. In the draft, grammatical errors are rampant and it currently doesn't meet style guidelines. I'll fix it up if no one has any objections. I'm a native English speaker and published. While the writing in the draft is outrageously poor, I wholeheartedly agree that the content does seem markedly better except for the "Bourgeouis Jewish" part. I assume the draft article writer is French. It might be the translation, too. In English, that sounds mildly offensive. Hauser's connection to the Annales School and Bloch really need to be emphasized, as well. Hauser is unknown in the Anglophone world, so connections to better known groups and movements are necessary to put him in context.Guinness4life (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thoughtful Keep because although the draft is better, its contents can simply be merged and improved to this current mainspace article as regardless the subject seems notable not only with the listed information and also because for its timeline (19th-century), there will likely be solid sources and even the currently listed source is acceptable. Notifying librarian for further analysis.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not the appropriate way to expand a current article. New material should be added (preferably gradually) to the existing article, if and when it is in coherent English and properly referenced. The draft appears to be a verbatim but poor translation of the French Wikipedia article (fr:Henri Hauser) which, while lengthy, is highly disorganized, repetitive, and devoid of inline citations. I agree with Guinness4life that placing it "as is" in the article would be a detriment rather than an improvement. In the meantime, I have expanded the article beyond a stub with the key biographical details and added three references, two of which can be used to source substantial further expansion. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. and expand. In general, if there is an inadequate article in the en WP and an adequate one in another WP, the two should be merged, or even the original one replaced by a decent translation of the article from the other WP, but thee is no need to actually delete the history of the enWP article, and therefore no need to use a deletion process. (The exception is of course total copyvio or vandalism where nothing can be properly saved). The translation from the other WP, in any case, must be edited into some approximation of normal English It doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to be better than a straight Goggle translation. It does not take a native or near-native knowledge of the foreign language to do better than Google.    It's only acceptable to copy in a straight translation, if one sets about immediately improving it, but at least the basics is necessary. Anyone who cannot do that much should ask for assistance,    DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 13 January 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.