Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regulatory 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 No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔   12:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Regulatory 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 what the target should be. 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 medical 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 Language-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-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)


 * As far as I can see, looking at results in GBooks and GScholar, "regulatory translation" refers to notable concepts in both law and biology. The legal usage, however, refers to the translation of public policy objectives into the terms of a private contract, which is not what this article is about. There are two articles in JSTOR that I have not considered. The usage in biology is something to do with proteins and is also different to the subject of this article. This second usage seems very common, appearing in large numbers of papers. This expression should, at the very least, be a redirect. The article nominated for deletion does not appear promotional to me. James500 (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 13 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.