Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexual Trials of Frankfurt


 * 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. A decision to rename the article, as suggested below, can take place at the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Homosexual Trials of Frankfurt

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is a machine translation from the German Wikipedia - word for word, down to the wikilinks (which for this reason do not work, even for things that we do already have articles for). Is the topic notable? Sure. But WP:MACHINE holds that machine-translated articles are "worse than nothing".

I put a PROD on this, and it was de-PRODded, on the grounds that it should be sent to draftspace for incubation. There is no purpose in incubating this: anyone can translate this page as it has been done here in a few seconds. Retaining this does not save anyone any work, and draftifying it will just add extra work for the AfC reviewers who will have to check it over again. Moreover, draftifying and fixing this article sends the message that it's perfectly okay to make fully machine-translated articles, because someone else will come along and do the work of properly translating them. I have no objection to a competent translator taking on this page - but please, let that translator be the one to create the article. Let's not encourage this. asilvering (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Noting that this passed AFC so isn’t irredeemably bad, and the topic is certainly notable. I might have a go at improving it in the next few days. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the article doesn't look that bad to me, it's legible at least. I'm going to try editing it a bit to improve the article, since having the machine-translated version is a good place to start. I don't think deleting it just to "send a message" is really helpful either. If someone else decides to machine-translate an article, what are the odds that they'll even see this AfD? BuySomeApples (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article a lot and I think it's already pretty serviceable. It'll probably need some additional information and historical sources added, but it's a solid jumping off point now. After the AfD is closed, should the page be renamed Frankfurt Homosexual Trials? I think it might be the more common English name. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @BuySomeApples What you're doing if you try to "fix up" this translation is telling the original editor that this is fine - they can keep on doing this, just randomly machine-translating articles, and someone will just come along and fix it up for them, no big deal. Are you going to check the references? The original editor didn't. (They couldn't read them!) Checking the references is a vital part of translating articles. At a glance, these look particularly hard to check - German journals, a German edited collection. There are nearly seven thousand articles awaiting translation, or post-translation checking and cleanup, from German alone. I assure you there are many, many more worth your time, created by an editor in good faith who was doing their best, instead of as a ten-second copy-paste dump. -- asilvering (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, when I edit an article to improve it I'm not trying to make a point to whoever created the article. I'm trying to make a more useful article for everyone who reads it in the future. Secondly, there are a lot of articles written by English speakers that use sources in other languages, I WP:AGF on these. Besides I'm already looking for English sources to supplement the article, and I'm sure other editors will do the same. A lot of machine-translated articles will probably have to be deleted because of their poor quality, but this AFD seems to have drawn in a lot of editors who want to fix it up and that's a good thing (in this case). BuySomeApples (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "You shouldn't improve this article because I want to make a point to someone who did something maybe inadvisable but not malicious" does not seem to me like the best place to insist on standing on principle. There are usually far more worthy articles to improve than whatever we happen to be have found at the moment, most editors aren't performing triage. If you want to make the point, warn the original author (which I have now done). Rusalkii  (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Someone will just come along and fix it up for them". Yes, it's called collaboration, which is encouraged here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a noteworthy topic that may have had a bumpy genesis onto the English wiki, but that happens from time to time and doesn't impact the notability of an article. No big deal, it just needs work. Other editors have also expressed interest in fixing the article so any messiness will be resolved soon, which is great. I was also going to suggest that if the primary concern is sending the wrong message to an editor by allowing this to stay, then leaving a message on their talk page noting the pitfalls of machine translation is a good solution (seems another editor has beat me to this mid-writing my vote). Usually this is done in good faith and it seems to have been the case here so it's not a problem. It's good to remember that sometimes ignoring the rules is the best path to take, as has been done here. -- Tautomers (T C) 06:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you guys for the support! Especially @BuySomeAppels did a great job! @Asilvering I see your point, the translation was week, but I have no experience of writing in English. No worries, as a native German I checked all the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitumial (talk • contribs) 11:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the light of this confirmation that the creator has read the sources I think that we need an explanation from asilvering of the sentences, "The original editor didn't. (They couldn't read them!)". What makes you think that? Why should German journals and edited collections be any harder for a native German-speaker to check than any others? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Phil Bridger They wouldn't be. I'm not sure why you are assuming that I knew the original editor was a fluent German speaker?
 * @Mitumial It's good that you say you've checked the sources. Are you confident that you'll be able to tell if someone has accidentally misrepresented what the sources were saying, when they clean up the machine translation? -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you didn't know whether the original editor could read German (by the way, reading is a different skill from speaking) then why did you claim to know that he hadn't read and couldn't read the sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware reading is different from speaking. You're the one who called the other editor "a native German-speaker" in the first place. Is there some reason you're being so condescending? To answer your question, I would assume in all cases that someone who is machine-translating an article wholesale - making no changes, and submitting that article through AfC as a "finished" piece - is not someone with ability in the article's language of origin. -- asilvering (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is starting to go beyond the scope of the AfD proposal and veering into bickering. It seems like this AfD is resolved, so it might be better if it is taken to usertalk pages if there is more to say on it. -- Tautomers (T C) 21:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think that calling out a lie in this very discussion is beyond scope. It is perfectly relevant. And to think that the bare-faced liar teaches university students. You should be worrying about that, not so-called "bickering". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If the lie you meant is claiming that the original author didn't read German that was almost certainly asilvering making an incorrect and overconfident assumption, but not deliberately lying. Seconding Tautomers, this no longer seems relevant to the question of whether the article should be deleted and is dissolving into personal insults. Rusalkii  (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @asilvering Yes I am confident that I will be able to tell if someone has accidently misrepresented what the sources were saying. No problem. I am able to read and understand English so far. I am obviously just not able to write in English properly. mitumial (talk)
 * Honestly, I think you're being harsh on yourself. The errors you've made on this page, for example, are pretty standard native-speaker stuff: "week" for "weak", "accidently" for "accidentally". Try translating your next article "by hand", just checking troublesome words with leo.org or whatever, and you might be surprised by how much you can do on your own. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @asilvering Thanks for your advice! I will try my best! mitumial (talk)
 * Keep coming back to this after a week and not having done any work on it… I can’t see any grounds for deletion. There are a few quirky bits of language and I’m not sure what exactly “illuminating gas” is but that’s minor. I also agree with the change of title suggested by @ BuySomeApples. Mccapra (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2021 (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.