Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical translation


 * 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   keep. JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Medical translation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be a subject notable enough for a stand-alone article. Might be appropriate for a redirect, but I'm not sure to which. I would say it's a common enough phenomenon to justify a merge except that there's no properly sourced content to merge. I'm nominating this and two other articles (METRiQ and regulatory translation) created by a user whose edits, as indicated by the language used in the articles and by sourcing entirely to for-profit translation organizations/sites, suggests WP:PROMO. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 18:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest redirecting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_interpretation#Medical maybe? 174.102.150.189 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. No rationale for deletion given. How can such a large topic not be notable? Why are you not nominating other similar topics like legal translation as well? If you consider the link to be promotional, simply remove the link. We shouldn't delete entire articles because they have one commercial link.-- Melody Lavender  11:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (??) Several rationales to choose from: notability, appropriateness for a stand-alone article, and pervasive promotionalism. ... Lots of large topics are not notable because of a number of reasons: better covered in another topic, there's not enough to be said about them that isn't already said in another article, they're too vague, and, most commonly, even though it's a big topic not enough sources exist talking about it specifically to write an encyclopedic article without synthesizing or duplicating material. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The question is whether there are sufficient sources about this very subject to merit an article. If yes, is there enough to say about it in those sources such that it merits a stand-alone article without duplicating material elsewhere. If so, then is it sufficiently promotional that it would be better to WP:NUKEANDPAVE. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are throwing catch phrases and not-even-policies (essays) at us, without giving any rationale that applies to this specific case. You should be telling us why you believe the topic is not notable and preferably give a source for that (for example: The New York Times quoting someone notable who says that there are only ten people in this industry.) If you want to merge the article, a WP:Merge discussion is more approporiate which you can initiate on the article's talkpage. As has already been mentioned in the post below: translation and interpretation are two different animals. There is no pervasive promotionalism in this article - it's actually a rather dull stub at this point that mentions little that could arguably need a footnote. There are only some basic definitions in the article. The potential for expansion is huge: there is a summary about the rules in the EU in the footnote, which can easily be researched and covered by a better reference. The reference is commercial, but it's not one of these bad cases with a link directly to an eShop, for example. Not to forget AMA or HIPAA, the American Act that applies to medical writing, transcription and translation probably has rules or conventions concerning this topic a s o. You could have easily entered the topic into google scholar and found out that there are thousands of results. -- Melody Lavender  05:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Catch phrases? Not only are WP:N and WP:NOT not essays, but they're pretty central to how AfD discussions work. Notability is not just some subjective sense of what is important, it's a quasi-objective measure of importance developed by the community to defer decisions about what should be included to coverage in secondary sources. If those sources can be demonstrated, then it also talks about what's fit for a stand-alone article vs. being notable enough to include in another article on a related topic. What Wikipedia is NOT talks about all the things Wikipedia is, well, not, and therefore if an article falls into one of those categories in a decisive way, it's also a valid reason for deletion. The essays I did refer to are oft-cited extrapolations/articulations of policy/guideline nuance and have pretty substantial consensus for being invoked in AfD discussions, so writing them off as "just essays" without addressing the points they summarize is problematic. As far as the article not being promotional, did you look at any of the references/links? Everything this user has created links to commercial translation business pages and associated information sites intended to sell something (and these links were inserted into several other pages as well). That makes for a promotional article, being that it's only here to drive sales.
 * All that being said, I'm not under the illusion at this point that I'm changing your mind. I think what I understand to be the core of your argument could be most easily be presented (i.e. without encountering resistance by saying things like "no rationale for deletion given") with something like: "It's a major field for which more than enough sources exist to pass WP:GNG and the promotional character of the article can be fixed so that WP:NUKEANDPAVE isn't necessary." I don't agree, and may ask you to produce some of those sources, but at least we can avoid the relatively meta parts of the argument. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Medical translation is a major field and profession worldwide. It shouldn't be merged into the article on interpretation because it's something different (written) versus oral (interpretation).  It's a shame the article isn't better developed, but it should not be deleted.–Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. This does seem to satisfy GNG. There seem to be entire books about it in GBooks. James500 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Medical translation is to translation as figure skating is to sports. Just as James500 said, entire books have been written on the subject. The nominator clearly failed to exercise due diligence when nominating the article for deletion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2014 (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.