Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert-Bertrand Barbe

: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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

=[[Norbert-Bertrand Barbe]]=

:{{la|Norbert-Bertrand Barbe}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Norbert-Bertrand Barbe}})

Not sure how to deal with this one. Obviously WP:CREATIVE applies, but I'm not sure the subject meets it. The French version of the article is a carbon copy (not sure which one was the original), and the Spanish version was deleted just a couple of days ago. bender235 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment This is clearly an electronic translation of the French version - the advisory box at the end of that version which starts "Cette bibliographie a trop d'ouvrages..." appears as part of a paragraph at the end of the English version! This indicates no serious attempt on the part of the editor to provide a usable article. The English editor is a single-purpose account. I can't make very much sense of the article because of the machine translation. This sentence for example "This work reveals the orientation already deeply panofskienne Norbert-Bertrand Barbe". Leaning backwards to try to be fair, I'll point out that the subject has some publications in Amazon - not that that means very much but it does show that there is a possibility of notability. Can the original editor take it down and work on it to improve the English and to demonstrate notability?Asnac (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: Whatever the merits of the subject, I think it is better to wait for a proper translation. Automatic translations require no effort and nothing would be lost by deleting this. --Hegvald (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation. I have not investigated whether the subject is notable. However, a machine translation dumped into the English language Wikipedia is not something useful for our readers, and is not a good base to build an article. Readers can get their own machine translation themselves easily enough. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. This particular article is insufficiently sourced and poorly translated. (Example: One footnote says, The entire internet is available in an extended version on the website of the journal Katharsis Revista, No. 6, March 2008. That would be very impressive if it were true.) As Whpq said, deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2011 (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.