Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Negrales


 * 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. Consensus in favour of keeping. Note that much of the unreadable text has since been copyedited. (non-admin closure)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Los Negrales

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See WP:AN/CXT for the discussion background to this; during that discussion, the community re-confirmed its longstanding view that a raw machine translation is worse than nothing; WP:MACHINETRANSLATION dates back to about 2006. This article is a raw machine translation from Spanish about an uninteresting suburb of Madrid. I found the article as part of the cleanup project. At first I prodded it, but User:Northamerica1000 deprodded. In the meantime the community had enacted X2, a speedy deletion criterion for these raw machine translations, which Northamerica1000 also declined. So now we're stuck with a raw machine translation in the mainspace which is clearly counter-policy. I don't believe we need an article about this suburb of Madrid at all. Even if we did, this machine translation is not a useful step towards getting there. Delete.— S Marshall T/C 18:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC) — S Marshall  T/C 18:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment why would you think that X2 applied, geographic articles of real places are rarely snowballs. The irony here is that, it seems to be a recognized place (and has a train station, which many consider a notable thing itself, leaving something notable train station within a non-notable place). WP:BEFORE says improve rather than delete. Since a machine translation can certainly be improved, are we now abandoning WP:BEFORE. I (any many others as well) could probably do a reasonable job translating the article, but why waste my time if it's a deletion magnet no matter what? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * X2 applies to raw machine translations, or fixups of raw machine translations by editors unable to read the source language. The reason for X2 is because machine translations are not reliable.  They can fail to parse negative sentences correctly, thereby inadvertently reversing the original meaning.  The exact accuracy rate varies according to the language pair, and in fact Spanish to English is one of the pairings that rates the highest: approximately 80%.  WP:BEFORE is important but when you look at it in context, it was only ever meant to apply to text written by a human  after all, anyone can generate a machine translation of the es.wiki article with a couple of clicks!  If you're willing to say to me that you're able to read the Spanish and confirm that the translation is accurate, then I'll withdraw the AfD myself.  My main concern is with having raw machine translations in the mainspace when I can't be sure a competent human has checked them.— S Marshall  T/C 22:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. This is a WP:TNT situation. The text is almost unreadable—even such a small point as "What do they mean in this cultural context by 'chalets'", and the larger point of the legal status of the community are unclear, and although I read fluent ESL-ese, I would need to go phrase by phrase with the Spanish to understand the article. That is not useful for our readers. As always in a TNT situation, if someone wants to do the necessary complete rewrite—in this case, retranslate the article properly—the reason for deletion goes away. The topic may or may not be notable: as stated above, the train station indicates it may be. But the article is ptentially a minefield of inaccuracies and is not useful as it is. That's why we have a policy against raw machine translations, and I agree, this one is still raw. I have my hands more than full fixing some of the 3,000 articles the WMF cruelly suckered editors into creating. I can't work on this one. I'll happily change my tune if someone does do it right in time and if it does then demonstrate minimal notability as a place. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Keep. It is a legitimate article about a populated place, and after the good work that Northamerica1000 put in, further fixing the style and translations was not that hard (even though English is a secondary language for me, and I do not know much Spanish at all). I'm sure further improvements can now be accomplished easily. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Last relist Nordic   Nightfury  14:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- as of Sept, this article reads fine; I do not see any awkward language. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  14:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Satisfies WP:GEOLAND, and AFD is not cleanup. In any case, the article has been cleaned up and is fine. Smartyllama (talk) 14:54, 8 September 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.