Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno Osimo

:{{la|Bruno Osimo}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Bruno Osimo}})

Non-notable writer. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, fails WP:CREATIVE.

ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and develop :Mr Bruno Osimo, academic expert in the field of translation Studies, author of various books quoted by Umberto Eco, and developer of a web-based translation course published in 9 languages has a sufficient notoriety and creativity to be mentioned by a wikipedia article. --Adumoul (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment The purpose of an AfD is to provide justification for keeping the article using Wikipedia criteria. Please advise how the cited accomplishments support Wikipedia criteria. ttonyb (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment If I take the criteria from WP Notability and WP Creative guidelines, I find this:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Mr Osimo meets all these criteria: He is widely cited by professionals in the field of Translation studies, he is known for originating the concept of [http://courses.logos.it/ online translation course], his articles and translation have led to the re-discovery of creative author in the field of semiology, such as [http://unprofessionaltranslation.blogspot.com/2009/12/ludskanov-in-italian.html Aleksandr Ludskanov], and a finally a search through google "translation articles" will show a long list of translation studies articles where the works of Mr. Osimo are mentioned and commented, specially by the [http://translationjournal.net/journal// Translation Journal]. --Adumoul (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment – You have submitted the individual meets the criteria for notability; however, there is no support that he meets this criteria. Just saying sometime is true does not make it so. Lets tackle each item you presented. #1 (Widely cited) - Where in the article does it indicate he is widely cited. You have given 5 instances, but a number of those are single page entries. This is not "widely cited". #2 (New Technique) - No mention of an earth shaking "concept, theory or technique". #3 (Significant body of work) What work? A few translation courses? Hardly a major body of work. ttonyb (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and develop --Comptrad (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment – The article has had almost a week to be developed and nothing has been done to expand or make sure the article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and develop: @ttonyb, what do you exactly mean by 'earth shaking' in the specific domain of translation? Can you list a number of earth shaking concepts in translation? Well, through his work on A. Ludskanov, A. Popovic and P. Torop, Bruno Osimo has brought to the fore the need, in Western Europe (where the debate over translation has always been confined to literary texts, while the processes involved in translating other types of texts have largely been looked upon as 'non creative'), for a common scientifically-based framework of reference by which the quality of a translation - irrespectìve of its subject matter or language combination can be assessed. In his book "Traduzione e qualità" Osimo looks into ways of bridging the gap between the theory and practice of translation. It is not so trivial a concept, after all, especially at a time when quality issues clearly exist, partly, also, because of internet technologies, thanks to which virtually anybody can access foreign language content and embark on translation> --Margitte (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Margitte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:*Comment – Exactly my point, I cannot not list any earth shaking concepts in translation and the article does not make mention (and support through reliable sources) the earth shaking nature of any of his work. Once more, the article has had almost a week to be developed and nothing has been done to expand or make sure the article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::When you say "I cannot not list any earth shaking concepts in translation" do you mean that you do not know enough about translation or that the whole field of translation has no "earth-shaking" concepts? Goochelaar (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:::* Comment – Whether or not I can or cannot is of no importance. What is of importance is the article does not make mention (and support through reliable sources) the earth shaking nature of any of his work. Let's focus on the article. ttonyb (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::I agree wholeheartedly. You were the one bringing up one's own ability to comment on translation. And, by the way, I cannot find WP guidelines mentioning "earth shaking" as a necessary requisite for something or someone to deserve an article. At most, I can find "significant". Goochelaar (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment – Did you really watch the books and pages mentioned? Why should you determine that the english article has to be developed in one week? Wikipedia has plenty of stub articles which create no controversy. I would like to quote a sentence from Kudpung: "Why does every sports person who has played one professional game, every street musician, every bit part actor, every kid who went on X Factor and Got Talent, and every small town hack and painter, (not to mention more than 800 porn actresses and actors), merit an article on the flimsiest of sources, while life-long academics have to jump through a whole page of hoops? " --Adumoul (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::*Comment – I would think if this individual is as important as you suggest, providing support would be easy. I do not determine if the article has to meet certain criteria. It was determined by consensus. The existence of other articles has no bearing on this one. Each article must stand on its own merits. It could well be that the others all need to be reviewed and deleted. Please see WP:WAX for more information. ttonyb (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Weak keep Not having a strong view for or against this article or the notability of its subject, who seems to be at least partially entitled to it, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Goochelaar (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (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.