Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Assimakopoulos

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Assimakopoulos

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

Google reveals no significant coverage (nothing more than lists of titles, no actual discussion of the subject) in RS. Prod removal claimed the article "seems to have adequate sourcing", but this is plainly, utterly false—of the three "sources", one is non-independent, and the other two offer the most trivial of mentions; one wonders how the prod remover could come honestly to such a conclusion. Unless sources that demonstrably meet RS and offer significant coverage are added, the article obviously cannot be kept; any other argument is an obvious waste of time. —swpb^T 12:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable translator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment: Once again with the personal attacks. Please focus on content. There are sources, and a WorldCat search pulls up about 15-20 works, even eliminating the duplicates. Given that the individual graduated from college in 1964, and mostly worked with the Greek language, we are not exactly going to find reviews of translators, even fairly prominent ones... WorldCat lists at least two of these books she worked on as being reviewed (Harvard Review, no less, also World Literature Today), though I can't access the sources: [1], [2]. Someone with access to a university database could do some more digging. Montanabw^(talk) 05:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to establish notability when I tagged this back in May 2016. Notability is established by coverage of the subject which is lacking ehre. Coverage of the subject's work is not wholly compelling. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Translators don't get a lot of press, that doesn't mean they are not notable; notability can be established even by one or two sources, and here we have sources, the Harvard Review and World Literature Today, reviewing books of others that she translated. I can't access them, but in all honesty, I think we are past "puff piece" here. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know very well that mere mentions do not constitute "significant coverage" of the translator by any standard. —swpb^T 13:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, my thinking is that we have to be genre-specific. Show me a sample article of an unquestionably notable translator. These are people who work in obscurity for the most part; seems there should be some sort of translators recognition or something, but I can't say I've heard of such a thing... curious if anyone here knows. Montanabw^(talk) 04:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are translators of Marcel Proust who are unquestionably notable: Charles Kenneth Scott Moncrieff, Terence Kilmartin, D. J. Enright and James Grieve (translator/author) come to mind. There is Constance Garnett, the famous translator of the 19th century Russian authors and many others. Your generalisation is unviable. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Curious the criterion that makes a modern translator -- absent another job -- notable and if it is in Google. Sincere question. Enright was an author as well as a translator, I don't really see Grieve having much better sourcing in his article than in this article (plus he's a professor and an author on top of being a translator anyway), Moncrieff died in 1930 so we've had 8+ years to assess his impact, and Garnett died in 1946, so ditto, plus only 13 sources there. I'm sincerely curious what would make a living person who is primarily a translator (and not a writer in their own... right) notable as a translator beyond what we have here...do they have to be dead or over 50 years to count? Montanabw^(talk) 06:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the reviews from World Literature Today to the article. Also, I wonder if anyone who is fluent in Greek might have more references. That said, the reviews of her translations fall under 4c of WP:NAUTHOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work! Insofar as those reviews discuss the translation and translator specifically, rather than the work in general, I'd agree that they meet 4c; they're certainly far better than what the article relied on before. In light of the new sources, I change my position to neutral—under WP:WDAFD I can't technically withdraw the nomination, since it's gotten some support for "delete". —swpb^T 20:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The equivalent of withdrawing would be to change to "keep" not "neutral". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I said neutral, and I meant neutral. There are some borderline sources, but I'm not convinced of notability. —swpb^T 17:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has translated a few books, but has not received significant attention. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per World Literature Today citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems here. Two articles in one publication does not constitute coverage in multiple sources. Is there another source we should look at? Also, World Literature Today coverage merely mentions the name of the subject without any elaboration. This is clearly "trivial mention" and so does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. ~Kvng (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Firstly this fails GNG by a mile. There are absolutely no sources discussing the subject. Secondly, the reviews in World Literature Today are not only slight, but also from a single source. There is literally no way the subject will pass WP:AUTHOR. For a work to be considered significant, multiple reviews of the work (in different sources) are required, which is far from the case here. As shown above, there are notable translators. The subject unfortunately is clearly not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – lacks significant coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks coverage. Ayub407^talk 19:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is very difficult to prove translators notable, and these two minor reviews are not sufficient to do it. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 31 August 2016 (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.