Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakh clothing

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The result was withdrawn. Not going to waste anymore time, clearly there are more editors who believe unintelligible crap is better than nothing Jac16888 ^Talk 21:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh clothing

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

Unsourced, badly translated to the point of being unintelligible ("If suits needed to be given to conviviality, it achieved special finishing"?) and reads more like an essay than an article Jac16888 ^Talk 09:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject is clearly encyclopaedic but I agree - the way it's written is badly translated and in some cases, unintentionally hilarious. ("The Kazakh girls also wore trousers, especially, when exploited.") This may be a case where total deletion and restarting from scratch is necessary. Mabalu (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup and it is our policy to improve such weak first drafts rather than deleting them. The topic is notable, being covered in works such as Central Asia: A Global Studies Handbook and Encyclopedia of World Cultures. If we have pages for items of western clothing such as baseball cap, we can certainly spare a page for the clothing of an entire people. Warden (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option". This article is so poor, so badly written that it has no postive aspects whatsoever. Cleanup would be very difficult, unlikely to happen anytime soon considering the massive backlog of similarly terrible articles we currently have, and it is almost a guarantee that anybody who was to want a decent article on the subject would be most likely to remove and replace the entire content - in fact I would consider it a strong possibility that an editor wanting to write about this subject would likely be put off from doing so by the already existing content--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In what way is the article "harming" you, the project, or someone else? I did some copyediting and added 3 books as references which have significant coverage of traditional Kazakh clothing. The article is still in considerable need of editing. A few remaining sentences which are difficult to understand because of the obvious limited English ability of the article creator could be removed. The subject is notable, so it is preferable to use the identified books and others available in libraries on national costumes to improve the article, rather than the encyclopedia having no coverage of the subject. We are not on deadline, and an article does not have to be perfect or even good to be in The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit as long as the subject is notable as shown by multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, which has been demonstrated in this case. We need not run around deleting articles about notable subjects because it is too much trouble to open up the identified sources and edit the article into a better one, or to remove or move to the talk page sentences which need major work. Edison (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article which cannot be understood by anybody without considerable effort is harmful to the project, it is as simple as that.--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I got a lot out of the article without much effort. What does that say? Edison (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is clearly notable. Deletion rationale is not grounded in policy. Like Colonel Warden, I'd like to remind that deletion is not for cleanup and that deletion policy requires us to keep articles that need mere improvement. Also, that the article "cannot be understood by anybody" is debatable: I am not a native English speaker, yet I understand most of the article quite well. The nominator would spend her/his time better by fixing it than by trying to delete it. -- cyclopia^speak! 20:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of a very few number of editors who does actually make an effort to improve the huge number of similarly badly translated articles - as a multilingual editor I would invite you to make an effort to to help out yourself before passing judgement on the ease at which such content can be fixed.--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have I ever said it was easy? I don't think so. I said it is not a reason to delete, and that such efforts are a better way to use your time than attempting to delete articles on notable topics. Thanks for the suggestions, anyway. -- cyclopia^speak! 21:24, 7 July 2013 (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.