Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akshuat's dendropark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }} Keep without predjudice. The article itself is in terrible shape, but that means it needs cleaning up, not deleting, and the consensus below agrees with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Akshuat's dendropark
AfDs for this article:
Text looks like it has been translated badly using an automated translator. As such, it may represent copyright infringement. This AfD is necessary to decide if the material should be retained. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. If the original text has been reworded from the source language, so that only the ideas remain, it isn't a copyright issue. To my surprise, the neologism "dendropark" has some currency in describing various nature preserves in Russia; I'd prefer something like nature preserve or national forest as a translation; the word seems to be a combination of Greek dendro- "tree" and English "park". At any rate, I am convinced of the plausibility of the subject and its worthiness of an article, which makes this a cleanup issue. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Note also that the subject seems to be referred to, under the name Акшаутский парк, in the Russian language article Барыш (город). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - A translation is an independent literary work from the translated original, and hence cannot be a copy-vio.
"Dendropark" does not appear to be a direct transliteration (though "park" is), I would suggest that it should become Akshuat's arboretum, using an English word for this kind of thing. However "Dendropark" seems to be a trnslateration of the name as given in Cyrllic script). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC) - Keep and cleanup, under the assumption that the park is a bone fide national park. Such places are inherently notable. PKT (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (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.
