Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Grutter

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. Article also warrants improvement. (non-admin closure) J 947 00:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Grutter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of the 3,583 articles created by machine translation scripts using the content translation tool prior to July 2016. There was a community discussion in which it was decided (1) to disable the tool on en.wiki and (2) to pass a new, temporary criterion for speedy deletion at WP:CSD#X2, to enable the removal of these articles. The community accepted that many of these articles are fixable and properly-translated versions of them do belong on the encyclopaedia; but the community felt that machine translations are not reliable. Copyedited fixups of machine translations are also unreliable unless the person who has done the copyediting has dual fluency in the source language as well as English and so can confirm that the script has preserved the original meaning in the source language.

Since that time I have been slowly grinding through the 3,583 articles listed here. Unfortunately in the case of this article the speedy deletion was declined, by an editor who felt the content translation also looks OK, which I thought was quite a remarkable thing to say about an article including sentences like The lyric of this period characterized by her subjectivity, as well as by the research to the social complaint, the erotic thematic and the trasformaciones of the modernity or The writings of Grütter move away from the metric tradition, the strict versificación gives her a step towards poetry more prosaica and closer to the daily language.

This badly-translated rubbish was generated with a couple of mouseclicks, incompletely fixed up by an editor without dual fluency, and abandoned in the Wikipedia mainspace in the hope that others would fix it. It's a textbook example of WP:KITTENS. Deleting it doesn't prevent an editor from writing proper content in this space. In fact, it clears the way for them to do so. —S Marshall T/C 21:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources for this 20th century Costa Rican poet are readily found in news archives searches En Espanol, but editors can readily verify notability by clicking on Books and JSTOR in the toolbar above. I suggest that we cut it down to a extremely brief stub, keep, and leave it tagged for sourcing. Reason for preferring keep, it that editors (especially new and occassional editors) are sometimes willing to expand articles that exist. @Shawn in Montreal:, if you're good with that, I'll return and cut it down to a brief, sourced stub. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. Subject appears notable but suffers from a dearth of English-language sources.RudyLucius (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.