This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
I was on hiatus in May and missed John Bambenek's annual trip to DRV. Never mind, someone was around to remind everyone of old times, and it was you. Well done :-) Guy ( Help!) 17:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to think through what changes, if any, are appropriate to avoid a repeat of the recent incident at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closures_at_WP:DRV_and_administrator_Cryptic.27s_block_of_me). Unfortunately, it is not yet over.
For the record, while I am quite unhappy at out how some aspects of the incident were handled, that unhappiness does not extend to your actions.
I do think the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review need improvement. I'm still mulling over exactly what recommendations, if any to make. However, it occurs to me that one way to help avoid a repeat is if you were an admin. I see that you were nominated but withdrew (with 88% support – is that a record?). You indicated that the time you concluded you did not "have the temperament for it". That was a wiki age ago — I wonder if you would reconsider? I haven't reviewed your talk page; my guess is you have been asked more than once but I thought I'd try once more.
Here's my thought process. Let's start with the caveat that, as you are well aware, I have been uninvolved in DRV. However, it occurs to me that DRV is something like the Supreme Court when it comes to content. While some might think that ArbCom is playing that role, their remit covers conduct and not content. As far as I know, when it comes to the existence of an article, DRV is the last realistic step in the process. (In theory, the foundation might have the last word but to the best of my knowledge they've never overturned a DRV decision.) For that reason, it is critical to make sure that editors closing DRV discussions are highly competent. We very imperfectly express a preference for an admin to close the discussion. By imperfect, I mean that it is a mistake to equate the holding of that bit too the appropriate level of competence. There are admin's who slip through the cracks and should not be making those types of decisions, while there are a large number of non-admin's who have the competence and temperament to make the tough call. For a variety of reasons those editors with the experience and temperament are not always admin's. The current rules imperfectly express a preference for admin's with an exception for some non-admin's to close discussions. Although I am still mulling over whether that wording could be improved, and it is highly likely to conclude that the effort to do the wordsmithing is not worth it, if you are one of the more prolific closers, then the community might be better off if you were an admin and therefore no longer have the potential of having the question raised.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Noticed two difficult, fraught RfC topics closed today. Both done sensibly and thoughtfully, regardless of whether I agree with all the specifics. Both sure to cause you headaches at some point in the future, and I think you know that in both cases, so props to you for doing it anyway. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
That RfC on GG is probably one of the most detailed and analytical I've seen on this entire mess. Thanks for showing that sensible reason trumps passionate bickering any day of the week. The only nitpick I can think of for this would be not to paint everyone in either group with a wide brush with condemning terms, but that's cause I've been called every name under the sun for being a supporter of GG. I don't want anyone to have to go through that; having the Wiki article cleaned up would be a huge step in the right direction of being able to hold these kinds of conversations without everyone getting so...uppity :P Sethyre ( talk) 05:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I think the key point here is that the current version lays greater emphasis on the fact that Quinn and Sarkeesian are the victims, and what's being perpetrated against them are hate crimes. The draft does not ignore these things, but its phrasing and structure makes them less prominent. The consensus is that the preponderance of reliable sources are accusatory, in a way that the draft is not. I would suggest that it's possible to fix the draft in such a way as to make it an improvement over the current article. All you've got to do is put the victim impact statements and the description of hate crimes at the top of the agenda. Because it's got to be a shift of emphasis, this means giving less prominence to the Gamergaters' position and de-emphasizing the portrayal of Gamergate as a discussion about reporting standards. The consensus is that Gamergate is not about reporting standards or antifeminism. It's about persecution and victimisation. It's this sense that I meant when I said it "must lay blame" ---- not necessarily blame at individuals, but blame in the sense that people are to blame for the way women in gaming have been treated over this. I hope this helps— S Marshall T/ C 09:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious about your comment, There seem to be no objections to Cunard restoring his (entirely different) draft to mainspace, although one editor is concerned that it might not survive AfD. I'm wondering if you noticed the objection I had written. I'm OK with you thinking other people had made stronger arguments to the contrary, but I don't see how you thought there were no objections at all. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall,
I just had a quick look at the 2016 update Cochrane review you mentioned and I agree with you that Cochrane is an excellent source. But as far as I understand it their mention that "the quality of the evidence is low" refers to the hypothesis that ecigs help smokers give up smoking. As far as I know no reputable scientific studies claim that ecigs are as dangerous as traditional cigarettes. I understand that ecigs have not been studied for more than a few years but how long does Wikipedia need before accepting that ecigs are safer than traditional cigs? It is hardly a high hurdle and I find it very strange that anyone would think an ecig was as dangerous as cigarette smoke. I don't smoke or vape myself but personally it is just so frustrating that so many educated young people here (in Turkey where I live) smoke so much but that I cannot import ecigs as presents for them as they are confiscated by customs, whereas the ecigs on sale here are poor quality. Even if the evidence for ecigs reducing smoking is low it is still worth a try I feel.
You did not mention whether ranting was allowed on your talk page but I feel better now I have got that off my chest. Normally I attempt to edit Turkish Wikipedia as I don't like to spend much time here on English Wikipedia as it has much better info already and takes up too much time without the benefit of me practicing my second language.
Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
{{ uw-3rr}} Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying that CDC are wrong. What I'm saying is that one of their views receives undue emphasis in the article, and I should be allowed to say that, Doc, because any fool can see how overloaded the captions are with this one allegation.
I'm content to revert CFCF and QuackGuru; they have Arbcom sanctions in this topic area which makes it hard for them to shut me down by brute force. You're not in the same position. But a template warning? Over an attempt to put a tag on a good faith NPOV dispute? That's really quite an extreme reaction.— S Marshall T/ C 19:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
You have added tags to the article 4 times today.
You have tagged the positions of the NIH and the CDC as "undue" three times. Per WP:MEDRS these are ideal sources for health information. And to clarify I also support including the position of PHE without tagging as it is also an ideal source for health information. Discussing your concerns does not require tagging.
With respect to attributing we should attribute the positions of PHE and the NIDA as they come to different conclusions. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The {{
undue-inline}} tag does not dispute what the source is saying. I fully accept that these sources do say these things. What the {{
undue-inline}} tag is to express a concern that that source is receiving emphasis that's not in proportion to its importance. In other words. I'm not tagging the positions of the NIH and CDC as "undue"
. I'm tagging our representation of these positions. Does this make sense to you?—
S Marshall
T/
C
19:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Excellent closing rationale, thanks. Hopefully that will prevent the ridiculous edit-warring that has been occurring on this article. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, S Marshall. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Marshall, could you clarify what you mean for the November 24 DRV Quick link on the article I nominated? I was told I should respect WP:NoConsensus, to treat the AFD as a keep, and am under the impression I am not allowed to redirect the article. Thanks! DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 10:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Marshall, in a few days I plan on asking an admin to close the straw vote and redirect the article. Once again, I'd like to confirm hosting this straw vote was something I was allowed to do. Thanks. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey, S Marshall. Just saw you on my watchlist with this edit. I'm about to leave Wikipedia again for a couple or few days, but, before I do, will you weigh in on the RfC topic I alerted editors to at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability? In the Discussion part of the RfC, I noted why the issue is important to me. If you'd rather not weigh in, that's fine. It's just that I wish that more policy-driven editors would give their take on this issue. If policy-driven editors disagree with my view, I'll suck it up and move on. I'll probably move on regardless of the RfC outcome. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants item 61 in an attempt to follow up on your closing of the previous RfC as a decision to try to create some sort of guideline. In the 2 weeks it has been opened, 4 editors (including me, the opener) have made comments on it. I am not sure how to publicize it better and I am reaching out to see if you can help me publicize it more. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello S Marshall. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ajay Yadav, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: While this may have intially been a WP:X2 candidate, I think enough later edits have been made to this article for it not to be deleted under that criterion. As always, please *do challenge this if you think otherwise. . Thank you. Shirt58 ( talk) 10:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Just a note, when tagging for speedy deletion under the temporary criteria CSD X1 & X2, you can use the standard templates {{db-x1}} & {{db-x2}}. These templates will properly tag and categorize the target for deletion. Thanks. Safiel ( talk) 01:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I have never edited Draft:Notability (beauty pageant participants) (except to remove the {{ mfd}} tag) or its talk page (except to apply the {{ old mfd}} template to it), nor made a comment in a discussion related to it (that I can recall). How was my closure involved? — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 19:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I get bored talking about one topic for too long. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 19:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. Rats! (the mildest swearword I could think of, because your edit notice says [8] we are allowed to swear here.
... regarding Virginia Grutter. After reading through your rationale on the AfD, I realized I made a mistake in declining the speedy deletion nomination and should have left it alone. I've reverted my removal of the CSD notice so an admin can take care of it. Apologies again - I failed to read through and assess the article accurately, and I will be more careful in the future. Appable ( talk | contributions) 08:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you mentioned the CXT cleanup work at AfD. I hadn't heard of it and I'd like to help, perhaps by going through the retained pages copyediting to cleanup after the machine translation. What's the best way of going about that? Is there a preferred way to track progress? Mortee ( talk) 13:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The result doesn't seem to be in line with my understanding of WP:X2, but maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. How often do you get this result at AfD? - Dank ( push to talk) 18:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's part of the problem. The wording of X2 makes it a special case of WP:SNOW which is (a) pointless and (b) not reflective of the discussion and community consensus that established it. It should read "machine translation with no non-machine translated version in the history". We may also need wording that specifically addresses the misconception that we need to keep machine-generated articles because notability; several admins haven't grasped this ime.— S Marshall T/ C 00:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
I was on hiatus in May and missed John Bambenek's annual trip to DRV. Never mind, someone was around to remind everyone of old times, and it was you. Well done :-) Guy ( Help!) 17:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to think through what changes, if any, are appropriate to avoid a repeat of the recent incident at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closures_at_WP:DRV_and_administrator_Cryptic.27s_block_of_me). Unfortunately, it is not yet over.
For the record, while I am quite unhappy at out how some aspects of the incident were handled, that unhappiness does not extend to your actions.
I do think the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review need improvement. I'm still mulling over exactly what recommendations, if any to make. However, it occurs to me that one way to help avoid a repeat is if you were an admin. I see that you were nominated but withdrew (with 88% support – is that a record?). You indicated that the time you concluded you did not "have the temperament for it". That was a wiki age ago — I wonder if you would reconsider? I haven't reviewed your talk page; my guess is you have been asked more than once but I thought I'd try once more.
Here's my thought process. Let's start with the caveat that, as you are well aware, I have been uninvolved in DRV. However, it occurs to me that DRV is something like the Supreme Court when it comes to content. While some might think that ArbCom is playing that role, their remit covers conduct and not content. As far as I know, when it comes to the existence of an article, DRV is the last realistic step in the process. (In theory, the foundation might have the last word but to the best of my knowledge they've never overturned a DRV decision.) For that reason, it is critical to make sure that editors closing DRV discussions are highly competent. We very imperfectly express a preference for an admin to close the discussion. By imperfect, I mean that it is a mistake to equate the holding of that bit too the appropriate level of competence. There are admin's who slip through the cracks and should not be making those types of decisions, while there are a large number of non-admin's who have the competence and temperament to make the tough call. For a variety of reasons those editors with the experience and temperament are not always admin's. The current rules imperfectly express a preference for admin's with an exception for some non-admin's to close discussions. Although I am still mulling over whether that wording could be improved, and it is highly likely to conclude that the effort to do the wordsmithing is not worth it, if you are one of the more prolific closers, then the community might be better off if you were an admin and therefore no longer have the potential of having the question raised.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Noticed two difficult, fraught RfC topics closed today. Both done sensibly and thoughtfully, regardless of whether I agree with all the specifics. Both sure to cause you headaches at some point in the future, and I think you know that in both cases, so props to you for doing it anyway. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
That RfC on GG is probably one of the most detailed and analytical I've seen on this entire mess. Thanks for showing that sensible reason trumps passionate bickering any day of the week. The only nitpick I can think of for this would be not to paint everyone in either group with a wide brush with condemning terms, but that's cause I've been called every name under the sun for being a supporter of GG. I don't want anyone to have to go through that; having the Wiki article cleaned up would be a huge step in the right direction of being able to hold these kinds of conversations without everyone getting so...uppity :P Sethyre ( talk) 05:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I think the key point here is that the current version lays greater emphasis on the fact that Quinn and Sarkeesian are the victims, and what's being perpetrated against them are hate crimes. The draft does not ignore these things, but its phrasing and structure makes them less prominent. The consensus is that the preponderance of reliable sources are accusatory, in a way that the draft is not. I would suggest that it's possible to fix the draft in such a way as to make it an improvement over the current article. All you've got to do is put the victim impact statements and the description of hate crimes at the top of the agenda. Because it's got to be a shift of emphasis, this means giving less prominence to the Gamergaters' position and de-emphasizing the portrayal of Gamergate as a discussion about reporting standards. The consensus is that Gamergate is not about reporting standards or antifeminism. It's about persecution and victimisation. It's this sense that I meant when I said it "must lay blame" ---- not necessarily blame at individuals, but blame in the sense that people are to blame for the way women in gaming have been treated over this. I hope this helps— S Marshall T/ C 09:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious about your comment, There seem to be no objections to Cunard restoring his (entirely different) draft to mainspace, although one editor is concerned that it might not survive AfD. I'm wondering if you noticed the objection I had written. I'm OK with you thinking other people had made stronger arguments to the contrary, but I don't see how you thought there were no objections at all. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall,
I just had a quick look at the 2016 update Cochrane review you mentioned and I agree with you that Cochrane is an excellent source. But as far as I understand it their mention that "the quality of the evidence is low" refers to the hypothesis that ecigs help smokers give up smoking. As far as I know no reputable scientific studies claim that ecigs are as dangerous as traditional cigarettes. I understand that ecigs have not been studied for more than a few years but how long does Wikipedia need before accepting that ecigs are safer than traditional cigs? It is hardly a high hurdle and I find it very strange that anyone would think an ecig was as dangerous as cigarette smoke. I don't smoke or vape myself but personally it is just so frustrating that so many educated young people here (in Turkey where I live) smoke so much but that I cannot import ecigs as presents for them as they are confiscated by customs, whereas the ecigs on sale here are poor quality. Even if the evidence for ecigs reducing smoking is low it is still worth a try I feel.
You did not mention whether ranting was allowed on your talk page but I feel better now I have got that off my chest. Normally I attempt to edit Turkish Wikipedia as I don't like to spend much time here on English Wikipedia as it has much better info already and takes up too much time without the benefit of me practicing my second language.
Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
{{ uw-3rr}} Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying that CDC are wrong. What I'm saying is that one of their views receives undue emphasis in the article, and I should be allowed to say that, Doc, because any fool can see how overloaded the captions are with this one allegation.
I'm content to revert CFCF and QuackGuru; they have Arbcom sanctions in this topic area which makes it hard for them to shut me down by brute force. You're not in the same position. But a template warning? Over an attempt to put a tag on a good faith NPOV dispute? That's really quite an extreme reaction.— S Marshall T/ C 19:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
You have added tags to the article 4 times today.
You have tagged the positions of the NIH and the CDC as "undue" three times. Per WP:MEDRS these are ideal sources for health information. And to clarify I also support including the position of PHE without tagging as it is also an ideal source for health information. Discussing your concerns does not require tagging.
With respect to attributing we should attribute the positions of PHE and the NIDA as they come to different conclusions. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The {{
undue-inline}} tag does not dispute what the source is saying. I fully accept that these sources do say these things. What the {{
undue-inline}} tag is to express a concern that that source is receiving emphasis that's not in proportion to its importance. In other words. I'm not tagging the positions of the NIH and CDC as "undue"
. I'm tagging our representation of these positions. Does this make sense to you?—
S Marshall
T/
C
19:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Excellent closing rationale, thanks. Hopefully that will prevent the ridiculous edit-warring that has been occurring on this article. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, S Marshall. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Marshall, could you clarify what you mean for the November 24 DRV Quick link on the article I nominated? I was told I should respect WP:NoConsensus, to treat the AFD as a keep, and am under the impression I am not allowed to redirect the article. Thanks! DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 10:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Marshall, in a few days I plan on asking an admin to close the straw vote and redirect the article. Once again, I'd like to confirm hosting this straw vote was something I was allowed to do. Thanks. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey, S Marshall. Just saw you on my watchlist with this edit. I'm about to leave Wikipedia again for a couple or few days, but, before I do, will you weigh in on the RfC topic I alerted editors to at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability? In the Discussion part of the RfC, I noted why the issue is important to me. If you'd rather not weigh in, that's fine. It's just that I wish that more policy-driven editors would give their take on this issue. If policy-driven editors disagree with my view, I'll suck it up and move on. I'll probably move on regardless of the RfC outcome. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants item 61 in an attempt to follow up on your closing of the previous RfC as a decision to try to create some sort of guideline. In the 2 weeks it has been opened, 4 editors (including me, the opener) have made comments on it. I am not sure how to publicize it better and I am reaching out to see if you can help me publicize it more. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello S Marshall. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ajay Yadav, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: While this may have intially been a WP:X2 candidate, I think enough later edits have been made to this article for it not to be deleted under that criterion. As always, please *do challenge this if you think otherwise. . Thank you. Shirt58 ( talk) 10:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Just a note, when tagging for speedy deletion under the temporary criteria CSD X1 & X2, you can use the standard templates {{db-x1}} & {{db-x2}}. These templates will properly tag and categorize the target for deletion. Thanks. Safiel ( talk) 01:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I have never edited Draft:Notability (beauty pageant participants) (except to remove the {{ mfd}} tag) or its talk page (except to apply the {{ old mfd}} template to it), nor made a comment in a discussion related to it (that I can recall). How was my closure involved? — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 19:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I get bored talking about one topic for too long. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 19:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. Rats! (the mildest swearword I could think of, because your edit notice says [8] we are allowed to swear here.
... regarding Virginia Grutter. After reading through your rationale on the AfD, I realized I made a mistake in declining the speedy deletion nomination and should have left it alone. I've reverted my removal of the CSD notice so an admin can take care of it. Apologies again - I failed to read through and assess the article accurately, and I will be more careful in the future. Appable ( talk | contributions) 08:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you mentioned the CXT cleanup work at AfD. I hadn't heard of it and I'd like to help, perhaps by going through the retained pages copyediting to cleanup after the machine translation. What's the best way of going about that? Is there a preferred way to track progress? Mortee ( talk) 13:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The result doesn't seem to be in line with my understanding of WP:X2, but maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. How often do you get this result at AfD? - Dank ( push to talk) 18:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's part of the problem. The wording of X2 makes it a special case of WP:SNOW which is (a) pointless and (b) not reflective of the discussion and community consensus that established it. It should read "machine translation with no non-machine translated version in the history". We may also need wording that specifically addresses the misconception that we need to keep machine-generated articles because notability; several admins haven't grasped this ime.— S Marshall T/ C 00:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)