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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical itinerary of Gasparo Cairano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is a very poor translation of it:Itinerario_critico_di_Gasparo_Cairano. It appears to be a historiography of the titular architect, and how his standing has changed over the years. That type of information can be worthy of a standalone article sometimes (see Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music), but only if high-quality secondary sources can be found. Unfortunately, this article is in large part original research from primary sources. For example, the only citation for the statement that There is no mention of Gasparo Cairano in Elia Capriolo's chronicle is the centuries old text itself; no indication is given about why this omission matters at all. The only properly used secondary source comes from one "Vito Zani", where multiple should be cited to preserve independence of content. Zani is also covered heavily in the § Studies and debates of the 21st century section, which makes me wonder if a conflict of interest exists. Mach61 19:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Italy. Mach61 19:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft: so the translation can be sorted out? It appears that there's a story here to be told, the article is too long to be hokum. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b Woulda done that, but the article was actually just approved from AfC Mach61 22:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was the AfC reviewer. While reviewing, I didn't fully comprehend the translation errors. That being said, I don't think WP:DRAFTIFY would prevent it from being moved back to draftspace for translation correction, unless there would be any objections.
  Interestingly, the AfC review process says nothing about when an article is a poor translation, or the prose quality in general. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 02:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on TNT grounds. Functionally incomprehensible confirmed machine-translated version of the Italian Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Manoru007 an I can review the translation and improve it. We work at OKA and we use translation softwares. After translating, we review and proofread the article (all according to our community validated guidelines), so the final text meets wikipedia's criteria. Sometimes we let some things pass and some parts don't reach a native level of English, since we are not native speakers. Usually we expect AfC and internal revisions to point out flaws and improvement gaps. If there are specific topics and problems in the translation that we can improve, let us know. Regarding references, we can improve, but we are not able to find references for the whole text, since it's a big article and we are not the original author.

Sintropepe (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very poor machine translation, WP:TNT as noted above. Sandstein 20:10, 18 November 2024 (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.