Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Adam Mickiewicz


 * 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. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam Mickiewicz
To reject something because of bad translation is always a sensitive and painful matter; but I just don't see how we can accept these translations and still maintain standards of quality. - InvisibleSun 18:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closed: Result: Keep as rewritten and retranslated. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless replaced with better translations. - InvisibleSun 18:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to improvements to page per Cato and Ubiquity. - InvisibleSun 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per InvisibleSun. Poetic works simply must have professional translations that strive to retain not only the meaning but also the feel of the original work. These translations, unfortunately, surely fall short on both accounts. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep now with the improvements. I'd prefer better translation sources than a Pedagogical University of Cracow professor, an obscure sonnet website, and what appears to be a personal website — mainly for better evidence of quote notability in the English world — but it's much better than what we had, the person is quite notable and known for his quotable works, and I'd bet we could find some books if we tried. I'd also like to see some source-line cleanup, especially getting those links out of the headings (arrrrgh!), but that's a content issue. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly notable. I'll clean up now.--Cato 22:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope it's acceptable now.--Cato 22:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like Cato and I had the same idea. Unfortunately, it was not possible to find decent translations to match all the quotes on the Polish version of the page &mdash; if it were better sourced, we could probably have done a better job. --Ubiquity 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This should never have been nominated. I put in two links to sources of good translations, and apologise that I didn't have time myself to use them, but it was obviously easy enough to do so.  Also, someone should have explained to the article's creator, on her own talk page, what was going on.  WP:BITE.--Poetlister 12:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It hasn't been our custom to inform people before nominating articles for deletion. If we adopt that practice, then of course I'll do the same. It would be a bit redundant, however, since the VfD tag informs them of this and shows where the discussion will be.  Soon after nominating this article, its creator put a note on my page asking the reason for my wanting to delete it. I directed her to the  VfD page and welcomed her to join in the discussion. I was thinking of putting a  tag on it rather than a VfD; but I thought it would be harsher to put "Poor translation" or the like on a  page than to create a VfD in which I would get to say how regrettable it is to do this.  A VfD nomination, after all, isn't intended simply to get rid of an article but to alert those who might want to work on it.  It stands a better of chance of being kept, from what I've seen, than if we choose to put a  on it instead.  I was patrolling the Recent Changes page when I came across that article.  I'm glad to see that better translations could easily be found; but I don't know that editors are obliged to fix articles, not knowing ahead of time how much time and effort will be involved, before taking an action like a VfD.  If I have time to work on such articles, I will; but if I have time for patrolling work only, I will do what I can, working on some things rather than others, before I need to move on.  - InvisibleSun 20:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously no reason to delete now.--Yehudi 09:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep now. ~ UDScott 15:53, 5 November 2007 (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.