Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beverley Bie Brahic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beverley Bie Brahic[edit]
- Beverley Bie Brahic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find evidence that this translator meets the general notability guideline. While Google Books shows quite some hits, almost all mention her as a translator of a cited book and thus do not provide significant coverage. The first hit is in Descant, a literary magazine, but having a piece published in such a magazine is not evidence for notability. No hits at all in Google News. I would be happy to be proven wrong on her lack of notability.
I declined an A7 speedy on this article some time ago because of her being shortlisted for the Popescu Prize. Since then, it has been proposed for deletion, but the tag was removed. Ucucha 21:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A literary translator (as opposed to, for example, a translator of legal documents) is a creative professional. I added some reviews of her translations. Note how this review discusses the difficulties of translating the text properly. - Eastmain (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding these sources. I looked at all of them and am not convinced that they establish notability. The Derrida review only cites her for saying that Derrida's French text has various textual difficulties. The review of Cixous's Manhattan states that Brahic included endnotes and that "Translating an author who enjoys playing with text is challenging, but Brahic excels at the task." The Dream I Tell You review says "Brahic's translation captures their late night spontaneity". The review for The Day I Wasn't There and Reveries of the Wild Woman states "The English translation by Beverley Bie Brahic of these two remarkable books of fiction ... is a valuable addition to the increasing number of publications available to Anglophones by this major writer." and "Brahic is well aware of the difficulties involved in rendering the motifs of Cixous's thought ... and proposes substitutes that do justice to Cixous's concatenation of sound and meaning." She is apparently a good translator, but I do not see anything that meets the "significant coverage" criterion of our general notability guideline--all the reviews are primarily about the books themselves and their authors, with only a few sentences at best devoted to the translator. Ucucha 12:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
- Keep WP:AUTH, which covers this creative professional, is a horrible, muddled mess of either/or/and/if/then/etc. such that it can be difficult to figure out how it applies to any particular subject. The way I read it, as it applies to this case, is as follows: 3. The person has played a major role in co-creating a collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Brahic clearly meets this guideline. Wine Guy Talk 06:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I read that page, topics still have to fulfill the general notability guideline (GNG) even when they meet some of the more specific criteria; it has not been established that this article meets the GNG (see my comment above). Additionally, I don't believe Brahic even meets the criterion you cite: she did not create, but only translate those works, and the reviews are primarily about the works themselves and not the translation. Ucucha 17:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The debate hinges on whether literary translation is a creative art in it's own right, it appears to be your assertion that it is not. I (and Eastmain above) disagree, as does the WP article on translation: "Translation of literary works (novels, short stories, plays, poems, etc.) is considered a literary pursuit in its own right." Here is a lecture given by Charles Simic on the Art of Translation to the Library of Congress; have a look at a few books, Performing without a stage: the art of literary translation[1], The Craft of translation[2], The translator's invisibility: a history of translation[3]; there's an interesting article here on The Art of Poetry Translation; there are also a number of notable literary awards given for translation. If you can accept that literary translation is a creative art in it's own right, I think you should also accept that Brahic is, in fact, notable. Wine Guy Talk 02:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think our disagreement hinges on a different point, and agree that translation is itself a creative art. But not every creative artist is automatically notable. I am arguing that the reviews are not primarily about her work, but about that of the original authors. Compare it with a review of a novel that says the artist who designed the cover did a good job, but otherwise focuses only on the novel itself: don't you agree that that doesn't make the cover designer notable? Ucucha 07:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I misunderstood your comment above: "she did not create, but only translate those works", as if to say that literary translation was simply a mechanical process as opposed to a creative art; I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your remarks. I certainly do agree that not every creative artist is automatically notable. I absolutely disagree with the analogy between a cover designer and a translator. Especially in poetry, Brahic's speciality, the words of the original author and the translator are inextricably linked, such that any review of the work is a review of both writers. A literary reviewer reviews words; in the case of a translation, those words were written by the translator. That being said, I'm not sure there's much more to be said. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. Wine Guy Talk 09:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think our disagreement hinges on a different point, and agree that translation is itself a creative art. But not every creative artist is automatically notable. I am arguing that the reviews are not primarily about her work, but about that of the original authors. Compare it with a review of a novel that says the artist who designed the cover did a good job, but otherwise focuses only on the novel itself: don't you agree that that doesn't make the cover designer notable? Ucucha 07:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The debate hinges on whether literary translation is a creative art in it's own right, it appears to be your assertion that it is not. I (and Eastmain above) disagree, as does the WP article on translation: "Translation of literary works (novels, short stories, plays, poems, etc.) is considered a literary pursuit in its own right." Here is a lecture given by Charles Simic on the Art of Translation to the Library of Congress; have a look at a few books, Performing without a stage: the art of literary translation[1], The Craft of translation[2], The translator's invisibility: a history of translation[3]; there's an interesting article here on The Art of Poetry Translation; there are also a number of notable literary awards given for translation. If you can accept that literary translation is a creative art in it's own right, I think you should also accept that Brahic is, in fact, notable. Wine Guy Talk 02:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I read that page, topics still have to fulfill the general notability guideline (GNG) even when they meet some of the more specific criteria; it has not been established that this article meets the GNG (see my comment above). Additionally, I don't believe Brahic even meets the criterion you cite: she did not create, but only translate those works, and the reviews are primarily about the works themselves and not the translation. Ucucha 17:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Translation is a creative art in its own right. See for example from the Chronicle of Higher Education, "Translation Has Its Moment at MLA" By Jennifer Howard for an explanation of the current status. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It is hard to argue with DGG. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2010 (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.