Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untranslatability

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. Consensus is that while the article should be cleaned up, deletion is not the right answer here. Malinaccier (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untranslatability[edit]

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

This has been tagged as WP:OR for over five years, and the only "fixes" have been adding WP:REFSPAM. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With translation taught at many universities, there's a vast literature on translation and untranslatability[1][2][3], so the topic is potentially notable but could it be better covered under Translation? The article feels essayistic and a bit Original research (although maybe it's paraphrased from somewhere else?). But it would be a shame to lose some of the material if it could be referenced and maybe moved. I guess nobody's sufficiently bothered to improve Wikipedia articles though (including me). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-ish? There is no deadline; deletion is not for clean up; et cetera. In principle the problems are surmountable. Furthermore, the topic is discussed in literature on translation or linguistics. But, as Colapeninsula suggests, this might be better handled in an article on translation, perhaps via selective merging. Cnilep (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google scholar returns 12,000+ hits for "untranslatability" and 10,000+ hits for both words "translatability untranslatability". Both terms are evidently widely accepted mainstream concepts in the scientific community. There is a lot interesting stuff in the article, most of it is clearly written by knowledgeable subject matter contributors. Very little contested material, two instances, small-stuff. OK, maybe some clean-up is needed, but why resort to wholesale deletion? FHHedlund (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2017 (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.