Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert Glasgow

:{{la|Rupert Glasgow}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rupert_Glasgow Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Rupert Glasgow}})

Not notable. The only mention I can find in third party RSs is [http://www.goethe.de/ins/se/prj/uar/eng/ueb/gla/enindex.htm this]. As a PhD student he definitely does not meet WP:PROF'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. Joe Roe (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• keep Perhaps the article could use some work, but Wikipedia seems best with more information to enhance readers' knowledge than otherwise. Conspirasee1 (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

::{{ping|Conspirasee1}} Arguments in an AfD should be based on policy and the characteristics of this particular article/subject, not a general preference for inclusion. Joe Roe (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete 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. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• 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. Conspirasee1 (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• keep 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 a case for 'remain' could be made. Mind article is meanwhile de-orphanized.192.129.2.114 (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• I wonder whether (in general, but also in this particular case) point 3. of WP:AUTHOR (Creative professionals) applies for translators. In Glasgows case, Heidegger, Monterroso as well as Martha Freud seem applicably notable.192.129.2.114 (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• As for Martha Freud, the translation of Glasgow is of a biography about Martha Freud, and thus this may not actually apply.192.129.2.114 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• I am sure translators could do with more recognition but Wikipedia 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 of finding sufficient sources to verify 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 or is work (translations and otherwise) have been the subject of more than trivial coverage in third party reliable sources. Joe Roe (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep 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 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).Epaisios (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's been difficult for us to easily quantify whether independent scholars are notable, since the don't have named chairs or other traditional indicia. I think the Google scholar test and h-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, lean towards notability. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• {{ping|Bearian}} 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 Madness, masks, and laughter, 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). Joe Roe (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• I am counting his translations. If that is not the consensus, {{U|Joe Roe}} I'll go along with the crowd. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• {{ping|Bearian}} I think it's fair to say that that's the main point of contention. Citation metrics are usually used to show WP:PROF#C1, which is "The person's research has made significant impact". I don't think translating somebody else's research counts as the subject's research. Joe Roe (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• 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.192.129.2.114 (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• The impact as translator may fall under WP:CREATIVE, 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.192.129.2.114 (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. A PhD student notable as a scholar, seriously? We still need substantial third-party coverage per WP:GNG, and there's not much if any here.  Sandstein  19:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• The status as Phd student in itself cannot be an argument against-notability / for-deletion, I think.80.187.108.90 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• My conclusion from the discussion above is that notability is at around threshold leaning to above-threshold for WP:CREATIVE#C3-alone (as translator), and around threshold leaning towards below-threshold for WP:PROF#C1-alone (as writer), but that together a reasonable case for keep can be made (223 entries in Google scholar).80.187.108.90 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.