472:
cited (36 citations for "Madness, Masks and
Laughter" according to google scholar). His translations are also easily found online and cited (176 citations for his translation of "The value of privacy" in google scholar). The issue that remains would be the "more than trivial coverage in third party reliable sources". For this matter I think that his output and the sources in this article are within the standards used for the entries in the category English Translators. (please browse the category).
367:
Translators and language-editors typically 'disappear' behind the actual author. Together with his own writings and the unusual recognition (unusual for free lance writer, translator and philosopher) of being invited to fairly high-level conferences such as the ESF-EMBO one in the references, I think
414:
I am sure translators could do with more recognition but
Knowledge is not the place to affect that change. If we were to follow the logic that translating a notable work makes one notable, the Harry Potter books alone would spawn 70+ BLPs overnight. Fundamentally, notability is about the likelihood
471:
I would argue that there are sufficient sources to verify the article. The citation list -after some work- contains several web pages of well known organisations such as the Goethe
Institut and various universities where the necessary information can be found. His books are all available, but also
618:, as criterion 3, namely "major role in co-creating a significant (...) work". I would thus think that, in general, this could be used to argue for the notability/ impact of translators. As for the present entry, jointly considering own work and translations may indeed make a case for keeping.
52:. There was some support for the applicability of at least the spirit of criterion 3 of WP:CREATIVE. I don't see that this argument carried the day, but neither was there a clear consensus to delete at this time. I suspect we'll be here again unless better sourcing is found, however.
213:'s institutional criteria and his original publications don't appear to have made much impact. At least one of them is through a vanity press. There is a claim on the talk page that translating a notable work (i.e. Heidegger) is significant but I think that's a stretch.
347:
I do not see that the argument to delete this article is that convincing either. The subject seems relevant enough and my point prior was that it is better to elaborate upon what's already written instead of removing what could be much more informative.
323:
as the Keep vote is not actually convincing how he's applicably notable (such as for WP:PROF) and where, when and how this can be improved; GoogleScholar and WorldCat have not shown anything, and the article's contents show nothing convincing.
419:
an article. Translating a moderately well known book is not going to achieve that. Nor is being invited to speak at a conference (which I don't think is quite as unusual as you think it is). The fact is neither
Glasgow
174:
526:
Where are you getting those metrics from? As far as I can tell, his work as an independent scholar (i.e. excluding his translations of others' work) has barely any citations. According to Google
Scholar
230:
531:, published 21 years ago, has 36 citations; all the rest less have than five and many of those are of dubious reliability. His h-index would be very low (I haven't found it calculated anywhere).
127:
168:
638:
250:
501:-score are probably the best, adjusting for the field of study. In this case, his large number of citations, considering his lack of university affiliation,
134:
600:
As far as I can see, judgement of impact/ notability can consider both the impact that translations made, and the impact of work as author.
386:(Creative professionals) applies for translators. In Glasgows case, Heidegger, Monterroso as well as Martha Freud seem applicably notable.
705:
683:
619:
601:
401:
387:
369:
273:
Perhaps the article could use some work, but
Knowledge seems best with more information to enhance readers' knowledge than otherwise.
100:
95:
104:
87:
17:
189:
400:
As for Martha Freud, the translation of
Glasgow is of a biography about Martha Freud, and thus this may not actually apply.
156:
424:
is work (translations and otherwise) have been the subject of more than trivial coverage in third party reliable sources.
62:
646:
582:
has made significant impact". I don't think translating somebody else's research counts as the subject's research.
444:
732:
696:
My conclusion from the discussion above is that notability is at around threshold leaning to above-threshold for
40:
150:
337:
298:
Arguments in an AfD should be based on policy and the characteristics of this particular article/subject, not
709:
704:-alone (as writer), but that together a reasonable case for keep can be made (223 entries in Google scholar).
687:
574:
I think it's fair to say that that's the main point of contention. Citation metrics are usually used to show
623:
605:
405:
391:
373:
713:
691:
677:
650:
627:
609:
591:
562:
540:
514:
481:
461:
433:
409:
395:
377:
357:
342:
311:
282:
262:
242:
222:
146:
69:
642:
353:
278:
728:
477:
36:
196:
682:
The status as Phd student in itself cannot be an argument against-notability / for-deletion, I think.
299:
490:
473:
325:
182:
91:
661:
A PhD student notable as a scholar, seriously? We still need substantial third-party coverage per
697:
615:
587:
558:
536:
510:
429:
349:
307:
293:
274:
258:
238:
218:
206:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
727:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
383:
162:
58:
701:
668:
575:
502:
494:
210:
83:
75:
662:
546:
583:
569:
554:
550:
532:
521:
506:
455:
425:
303:
254:
234:
214:
121:
700:-alone (as translator), and around threshold leaning towards below-threshold for
416:
53:
382:
I wonder whether (in general, but also in this particular case) point 3. of
368:
a case for 'remain' could be made. Mind article is meanwhile de-orphanized.
721:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
205:
Not notable. The only mention I can find in third party RSs is
447:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
231:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
489:. It's been difficult for us to easily quantify whether
117:
113:
109:
181:
453:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
735:). No further edits should be made to this page.
209:. As a PhD student he definitely does not meet
195:
8:
639:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
637:Note: This debate has been included in the
251:list of Germany-related deletion discussions
249:Note: This debate has been included in the
229:Note: This debate has been included in the
545:I am counting his translations. If that is
636:
248:
228:
495:named chairs or other traditional indicia
614:The impact as translator may fall under
497:. I think the Google scholar test and
7:
665:, and there's not much if any here.
493:are notable, since the don't have
300:a general preference for inclusion
24:
415:of finding sufficient sources to
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
553:I'll go along with the crowd.
482:08:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
462:01:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
434:00:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
410:15:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
396:15:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
378:13:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
358:01:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
343:21:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
312:14:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
283:14:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
263:14:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
243:14:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
223:14:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
529:Madness, masks, and laughter
714:10:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
692:10:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
678:19:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
651:15:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
628:14:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
610:15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
592:20:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
563:20:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
541:13:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
515:13:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
70:01:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
752:
724:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
503:lean towards notability
580:The person's research
491:independent scholars
676:
653:
643:Shawn in Montreal
547:not the consensus
464:
265:
245:
67:
65:So let it be done
60:
743:
726:
675:
673:
666:
573:
525:
458:
452:
450:
448:
340:
335:
297:
200:
199:
185:
137:
125:
107:
63:
59:
34:
751:
750:
746:
745:
744:
742:
741:
740:
739:
733:deletion review
722:
669:
667:
567:
519:
465:
456:
443:
441:
338:
326:
291:
142:
133:
98:
82:
79:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
749:
747:
738:
737:
717:
716:
698:WP:CREATIVE#C3
694:
680:
655:
654:
633:
632:
631:
630:
612:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
484:
451:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
412:
398:
362:
361:
360:
317:
316:
315:
314:
286:
285:
267:
266:
246:
203:
202:
139:
84:Rupert Glasgow
78:
76:Rupert Glasgow
73:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
748:
736:
734:
730:
725:
719:
718:
715:
711:
707:
706:80.187.108.90
703:
699:
695:
693:
689:
685:
684:80.187.108.90
681:
679:
674:
672:
664:
660:
657:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
635:
634:
629:
625:
621:
620:192.129.2.114
617:
613:
611:
607:
603:
602:192.129.2.114
599:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
571:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
530:
523:
518:
517:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
485:
483:
479:
475:
470:
467:
466:
463:
460:
459:
449:
446:
435:
431:
427:
423:
418:
413:
411:
407:
403:
402:192.129.2.114
399:
397:
393:
389:
388:192.129.2.114
385:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
370:192.129.2.114
366:
363:
359:
355:
351:
346:
345:
344:
341:
336:
333:
329:
322:
319:
318:
313:
309:
305:
301:
295:
290:
289:
288:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
247:
244:
240:
236:
232:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
198:
194:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
144:Find sources:
140:
136:
132:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
68:
61:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
723:
720:
670:
658:
579:
578:, which is "
528:
498:
486:
468:
454:
442:
421:
364:
350:Conspirasee1
331:
327:
320:
294:Conspirasee1
275:Conspirasee1
270:
204:
192:
186:
178:
171:
165:
159:
153:
143:
130:
54:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
616:WP:CREATIVE
169:free images
702:WP:PROF#C1
671:Sandstein
576:WP:PROF#C1
729:talk page
487:Weak keep
384:WP:AUTHOR
37:talk page
731:or in a
474:Epaisios
445:Relisted
128:View log
39:or in a
659:Delete.
584:Joe Roe
570:Bearian
555:Bearian
551:Joe Roe
533:Joe Roe
522:Bearian
507:Bearian
457:MBisanz
426:Joe Roe
304:Joe Roe
255:Joe Roe
235:Joe Roe
215:Joe Roe
211:WP:PROF
175:WP refs
163:scholar
101:protect
96:history
663:WP:GNG
417:verify
334:wister
330:wister
321:Delete
147:Google
105:delete
55:Xymmax
190:JSTOR
151:books
135:Stats
122:views
114:watch
110:links
16:<
710:talk
688:talk
647:talk
624:talk
606:talk
588:talk
559:talk
537:talk
511:talk
478:talk
469:Keep
430:talk
406:talk
392:talk
374:talk
365:keep
354:talk
339:talk
308:talk
279:talk
271:keep
259:talk
239:talk
219:talk
207:this
183:FENS
157:news
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
197:TWL
126:– (
712:)
690:)
649:)
641:.
626:)
608:)
590:)
561:)
549:,
539:)
513:)
505:.
480:)
432:)
422:or
408:)
394:)
376:)
356:)
310:)
302:.
281:)
261:)
253:.
241:)
233:.
221:)
177:)
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
708:(
686:(
645:(
622:(
604:(
586:(
572::
568:@
557:(
535:(
524::
520:@
509:(
499:h
476:(
428:(
404:(
390:(
372:(
352:(
332:T
328:S
306:(
296::
292:@
277:(
257:(
237:(
217:(
201:)
193:·
187:·
179:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
149:(
141:(
138:)
131:·
124:)
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.