Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/A2

This is part of Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

A2 (foreign languages)

 * Speedy deletion criterion A2 should be reworded to "Any article in a foreign language that has been listed on Pages needing translation into English for fourteen days, and has not been translated".


 * The criterion presently reads "Foreign language articles that already exist on another Wikimedia project, as a result of having been copied and pasted into Wikipedia after their creation elsewhere, or as a result of having been moved via the transwiki system."
 * Presently, such articles go to VFD after seven days. However, most people on VFD do not know what to do with it since they cannot read the language. This isn't speedy deletion per se because of the two-week delay; this proposal places the power to judge the article in the hands of whoever can read it.
 * WP:PNT is heavily frequented. After two weeks, someone has almost always made a start with the translation. If not, then it's likely that they find the article not worth translating.
 * Remember that admins are never forced or obliged to delete anything. If a user indicates the translation is being worked on, that would be a good reason to keep it. If need be, it can be temporarily stored in that user's userspace.
 * If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

[ vote] – discuss

Votes
'''This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).'''

Support

 * 1) Yes DES 4 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
 * 2) --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
 * 3) humblefool® 4 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support. JYolkowski // talk 4 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
 * 6) This makes sense Dunc|☺ 5 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)
 * 7) I don't believe I have ever seen an article listed on VfD for remaining untranslated on Pages Needing Translation survive the vote. It's almost always unanimous.    &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)
 * 8) This is a good proposal. If an article is not in English it's often hard to know what to do to be fair. This makes it clear, and could speed things up rather than slow it down as some have suggested. Naturenet | Talk 5 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
 * 9) To decrease Wikibureaucracy – the less we have to go through involved procedures such as VfD, the less bureaucratic it gets! &mdash; Sebastian (talk) July 6, 2005 02:56 (UTC)
 * 10) Support as if it remains dormant for 2 weeks, it probably means that few people are intrested in the subject or it is no use to wikipedia. definetly useful in my opinion. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:17 (UTC)
 * 11) R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support. I think this a good, common sense proposal. Physchim62 6 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
 * 13)  Aphaea  *  6 July 2005 14:30 (UTC) But week. I have heard sometimes two weeks are too short for translation.
 * 14) Carnildo 6 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)
 * 15) --Wikiacc (talk) July 7, 2005 02:13 (UTC)
 * 16) Support.   ral  315  July 7, 2005 05:18 (UTC)
 * 17) Support.  While two weeks may not be enough for a full translation, if an article has not at least been started to be translated, it's probably not worth translating.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 07:37 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 7 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)
 * 19) * Ucucha's 250th contribution was at (or after) 07:40, 9 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. I actually thought this was already a speedy criterion. --Angr/undefined 8 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Two weeks ought to be enough for everybody. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ July 8, 2005 08:57 (UTC)
 * 22) support vfd is overburdened and every little bit helps. --Jiang 9 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)
 * 23) Gwk 9 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)
 * 24) * Gwk's 250th contribution was at (or after) 02:40, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. TheCoffee 20:54, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support -- nyenyec ☎ 00:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support It seems a reasonable way to reduce vfd load due to articles that would never be translated  --Mysidia 12:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) * Mysidia's 250th contribution was at (or after) 18:25, 9 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. --MarkSweep 01:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. Wikipedia is not an infodump. Fifelfoo 03:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Shanes 05:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Dan100 (Talk) 08:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support– Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support since VfD is bound to grow. Although 2 weeks seems too short... --Feydey 21:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) SUPPORT. If two weeks isn't long enough to translate, then by all means, userfy it. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  06:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Two weeks is an eternity on Wikipedia. Any longer and you really get diminishing returns. Plus, speedy seems more appropriate than VFD. Casito⇝Talk 02:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Support- giving people more time (7 days changed to 14 days) makes sense, but after that, it's not likely to be translated. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Dragons flight July 4, 2005 20:27 (UTC) I am bothered that the proposed language does not include a requirement that someone know what the text means.  Given the size of wikipedia and the growing availability of online translation services, it should always be possible to find someone who can get a rough understanding of a foreign language page's content.  After that, if it is not seen as desirable to translate then I wouldn't object to it being speedied.  At least with the present criterion, there is an expectation that the content will continue to exist in another wikimedia project, but here we don't have that.
 * 2) Jmabel | Talk July 4, 2005 20:44 (UTC): In my experience, (1) these have about a 15% salvage rate when they go to VfD and (2) they almost never create time-consuming controversies on VfD (those that are not salvaged tend to be easy, unanimous agreements to delete). So it seems to me that there would be a clear loss, and no obvious gain, in skipping the VfD step on these.
 * 3) * I just want to add: I find it seriously bizarre that so many people are supporting this, despite a reasonably high salvage rate for these articles. Isn't the idea of speedy deletion to have a fast process on things that aren't likely to turn into articles? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Kappa 4 July 2005 21:12 (UTC) Agree with Jmabel; Vfd gets more traffic than pages needing translation, so good saves can take place.
 * 5) As I said in the discussion prior to the vote, A2 is unclear, simply doesn't match the way that things actually work, and embodies a view of WikiMedia projects (that the only other projects that exist are other-language Wikipedias) that is now outdated. It should be replaced. However, this is not what should replace it.  Proposal 10 is what should replace it.  As I also said in that discussion, I do not see a pressing reason for this to be a speedy deletion criterion so that untranslated articles can take a shortcut around WP:VFD.  I'd be persuaded if there were statistics to show that untranslated articles formed a significant fraction of overall VFD traffic, and were universally deleted.  But I've seen untranslated articles rescued at VFD, too. Uncle G 4 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
 * 6) NatusRoma 5 July 2005 00:06 (UTC) Untranslated material from outside of WikiMedia may constitute useful content that would not otherwise be included in Wikipedia. Or, it may be gibberish. A single administrator who might not even know the language in which the text is written should not be the one to make that decision.
 * 7) Some of these have been rescued on VfD. As for the others, well, this is the EN-wiki, so if the article is not in English or some variant thereof, then it should be deleted.  But give them their fair shot at a translation by alerting those VfD frequenters who don't stop by Pages Needing Translation often. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
 * 8) -Splash July 5, 2005 00:28 (UTC)
 * 9) Since these are almost always legitimate articles, just not in a comprehensible (to most of us) language, it seems fair to give them one last chance at VfD. Denni☯  2005 July 5 01:47 (UTC)
 * 10) Unlike torlling, hoaxes, & vanity, these articles bear no harm. (If someone recognizes any of untransalted as one of these, VfD is right here.) mikka (t) 5 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)
 * 11) Speedy deletion is unnecessary in these cases. &mdash; Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong oppose. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 5 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, this is not a Wikibureaucracy. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
 * 14) Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)
 * 15) Agree with the majority here.Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)
 * WP:PNT contains generally useful articles. Some may need a specialist attention, i.e. someone who knows the foreign language and furthermore understands the content. This may take longer than 14 days. It may even take some months. I once translated an article on advanced mathematics from Russian to English. It had been listed for longer than 14 days. When this new rule would have been applied, it would never have been translated. Therefore, I strongly oppose. JoJan 5 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)
 * 1) It works fine as it is Lectonar 5 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree it seems to work okay as it is and I don't see how this is supposed to make things better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
 * 3) Seems like unnecessary bloat to me. — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. System works OK now, changing would just tie things up for a while. David | Talk 5 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)
 * 5) David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)
 * 6) --Mononoke 5 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)
 * 7) * Mononoke's 250th contribution was at (or after) 03:29, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) The wiki solution is translation and cleanup, not deletion. Factitious July 5, 2005 23:01 (UTC)
 * 9) No they should still go through VfD; many good reasons listed above.--Scimitar 5 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose for the many reasons above. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. I agree in principle, but there should be a provision for articles that need more time for a full translation (see e.g. JoJan's example). Articles shouldn't be speedied if someone thinks that it can be translated in a few more days. Sietse 6 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Oppose. I don't see the point of demanding work within a certain time frame from volunteer editors.  If someone can't tolerate a Work-In-Process section, perhaps that person should not be working in a Wiki environment.  Unfocused 6 July 2005 07:33 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, per Unfocussed and Jmabel. Thryduulf 6 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
 * 15) ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose per Jmabel. It takes a VfD to determine if something this complicated is keep-worthy. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)
 * 18) --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)
 * 19) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)No way, a terrible idea. Info needs translated before it is deleted. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose drini ☎ 7 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. Ain't broke.  Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)
 * 23) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:05 (UTC)
 * 24) Hiding 22:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Dsmdgold 13:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Not an outstanding idea. --Sn0wflake 07:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose agree with Kappa. The translation page may be heavily frequented, but VFD has even more visitors, making it a place where saves often take place. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose and put a nail in its coffin. I was going to support it since I believe A2 itself needs to be removed or reworded. However, I oppose any speedy delete rule that encourages deletion of material that has not even been reviewed and determined by consensus to not contribute to wikipedia.Inigmatus 15:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) * Inigmatus's 250th contribution was at (or after) 17:21, 12 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose. Why? David Remahl 03:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. Doesn't make any sense why this should be even considered as a criterium (or whatever the singular form of criteria is). IanManka 04:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) * IanManka's 250th contribution was at (or after) 05:33, 13 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Have been convinced that criterion is too broad. Superm401 | Talk 04:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) I am rather surprised that so few of those who oppose this proposal have weighed in on Votes for deletion/جرمنی, a page in Farsi which was sent to VfD dispite its listing on WP:PNT. After all, this about shows how much use VfD is (not) for such pages, especially when they are precociously listed as here. Physchim62 16:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Responding to User:Casito above: why is speedy more appropriate than VfD for something that has about a 15% salvage rate? -- Jmabel | Talk