Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Farahmand

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Farahmand

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Reza Farahmand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article qualifies for CSD X2, but this appears to be a speedy deletion criterion that our wise administrative corps is unwilling to apply. The reasons for deleting these machine translations is (exhaustively) set out at WP:AN/CXT. Even if there weren't a machine translation issue, I also have no idea what's supposed to be reliable about the sources for this biography of a living person. —S Marshall T/C 16:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:S Marshall, I have no comment on X2, but I just added three reliable sources. As I expected, it's not easy to find sourcing for an Iranian documentary filmmaker, but I think what we have right now at least suggests he passes the GNG. Oh, if that stuff that was in the article was machine-translated, there's a lot less of it now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, Notable person: several awards at major film festivals (more than listed, but I got lazy to chase sources for more), plenty reliable sources. Requires a lot of cleanup/verification of film titles by a bilingual person. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we had an editor with dual fluency in Persian and English who could verify this translation then I would happily withdraw the AfD. You may be able to recruit one via WikiProject Iran. I suspect such a person would find it easier to make a clean start than to fix this, though.—S Marshall T/C 20:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More generally:
Reviewing the nom's X2 speedy requests, about 2/3 have been deleted, and 1/3 have had the speedy removed. I have not looked at them specifically to see if this is related to quality / notability / willingness of soeone to immediately check & improve/which admin did the deletion.
Questions. I've just tried to refresh my knowledge of the discussions on X2; I seem to be missing something, but it seeed to me that the latest status of the discussion is that the ones that are still present should be draftified. [1]--in the absence of other reasons to delete them.( It was assumed in the discussion I have cited that most that are transferred to draft would end up deleted after 6 months as G13 because nobody would work on them).But I do not think this was ever done, so there must be a later discussion.
I see we at present have [[ Wikipedia:Administrators _noticeboard/CXT/Keep list July2017] and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Draftification list July 2017. I looked at a few of the articles on the lists. The ones on the kept list are mostly OK, though some need further copyediting or referencing. Most of them were utterly straightforward, which is why they were kept. The ones on the Draftification list were varied: some have been extensively worked on with skill; some need extensive copyediting; a few had problems that I cannot resolve without retranslating; a few can not be fixed without rewriting, because the original used was inadequate or unclear. (we talk about the skill needed to translate, but we also need to consider the skill necessary to write an article in the first place). Most of them would be worth improving, but not all.
So, 1. S Marshall, or anyone who can help, from where did you get the articles you nominated for speedy? 2. What is the actual current consensus status of X2.? 3. The original discussion was that X2 was to be temporary. That was two years ago. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very much in favour of rescuing articles. These machine translations, though, are a special case. The Wikimedia Foundation very unwisely created a tool that turned a foreign-language Wikipedia article into an en.wiki article with a couple of clicks. The algorithm they used was Google Translate. But the thing is that anyone can generate a machine translation with a couple of clicks at any time, and the translation algorithm is constantly improving. Therefore when you put a machine translation from fa.wiki into en.wiki, what you're actually doing is crystallizing a translation that's going out of date as soon as you've crystallized it. Unfortunatley, these 3,613 articles were generated very rapidly, at the rate of dozens per hour in some cases, while I have to go through them all painstakingly, one by one, identify the problem ones, nominate them for CSD, get disregarded by sysops who decide they're improvable without reading and understanding the discussion I've linked, nominate them for deletion, and then fight AfDs, inclusionist by inclusionist, trying to get through policies that are designed to defend good-faith article creators who've put some work in. It's an utterly disproportionate amount of effort and with these particular ones, trying to rescue them makes it worse, not better.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you, but this particular article is 98% rewritten. I did my part just for fun of figuring out what the heck " otagh e soud ", means, how to back-translate " treking chamber" or "Persuasion", etc. Other than that I have no interest in Persian culture whatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My basic concern about this is that now we seem to have an article written in plausible English, but partly based on sources in Persian, written by editors who don't appear to speak Persian.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator's main concern seems to be the machine translation of the original version of this article. There are now far more English-language sources than Farsi-language sources, so verifying the information is not a problem. I can't agree that finding and adding English-language sources makes this article worse, nor that the encyclopedia would be better off without this article about a filmmaker whose films have won awards in Iran, France and the Czech Republic, and have also been seen in Italy, Germany, Greece and the UK. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient sources. Translations should be judged as any article would be. The nom's concerns, in particular seems to be the possible inaccuracy of translations, and the reliance upon references few of us can read. But these potential problems apply to all of WP, not just the translated articles. Almost all WP articles except those few that have had formal peer review by experts and not changed since have potential inaccuracies. The purpose of WP is not to construct a perfectly accurate and reliable scholarly encyclopedia. Even were this possible -- there has been no general English language encyclopedia that has ever truly reached this standard, despite what they may have claimed in their advertising & PR--making such an encyclopedia is not the purpose of Wikipedia, nor do we have the standard of not having errors. Similarly, we accept in good faith references we can only a few of us read in WP--references in all languages are acceptable, no matter whether one particular person cannot read them; the standard is Verifiable, not verified. If there is a reasonable challenge, we look for a WPedian who knows the language. Similarly, if a source is a printed book and is reasonably challenged, we look for a WPedian who has access to a copy. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever problems this article may have had previously it now has adequate sourcing and if there are further amends needed to correct for a mistranslation a future editor can deal with them. Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reza_Farahmand&oldid=931838541"