Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South African Translators' Institute

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. MBisanz ^talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South African Translators' Institute[edit]

I've searched around for 3rd party mentions of this body, without any luck. Google only brings up listings in various directory services. There are no articles in the major news media of South Africa (neither Independent Online nor Media24) mentioning this organisation. The entire article is written based off information found on the organisation's website. Given the lack of any external 3rd party references whatsoever, this should be deleted for failing WP:V and WP:N Zunaid 16:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is the information that the OP was looking for:

Here are some links from Media24's archives:

http://152.111.1.87/argief/berigte/dieburger/1998/07/22/16/7.html

http://152.111.1.87/argief/berigte/dieburger/2005/06/01/TB/04/01.html

http://152.111.1.87/argief/berigte/dieburger/1990/10/23/6/7.html

And from Mail and Guardian's archives:

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2007-09-12-not-lost-in-translation

The organisation is mentioned on the International Federation of Translators' web site:

http://fit-ift.org/en/africa.php

and on the web site of the American Translators' Association:

http://www.atanet.org//ata_activities/FIT_Survey_Report.pdf

And some more mention of it:

http://www.atkv.org.za/links.cfm?ipkCategoryID=175

and even the South African government's web site:

http://www.gcis.gov.za/gcis/directory.jsp?dir=10&cat=8&org=482

The OP claims to have Googled for 3rd party mentions. Really? What's this then:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=af&client=opera&rls=en&hs=w6Y&q=sati%40intekom.co.za&btnG=Soek

http://www.google.com/search?hl=af&client=opera&rls=en&hs=87Y&q=SATI+combrink&btnG=Soek

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=sati+savi&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.google.com/search?hl=af&client=opera&rls=en&hs=VWE&q=%22south+african+translators+institute%22+site%3A.uk&btnG=Soek

I see no reason to delete this page. Translator associations from elsewhere in the world also have wiki pages. The fact that my sole source was the organisation's own web site doesn't mean it is not verifiable or not notable. -- leuce (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lists of translation services are not sources which establish notability. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a 700-member organization with the article sourced to its own website doesn't confer WP:N or pass WP:ORG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of members is irrelevant to the notability -- read the fifth paragraph of WP:ORG. Furthermore, the organisation complies with the [Primary Criteria] and with the [Alternate Criteria for non-commercial organisations] listed on that page. -- leuce (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The links provided above only seem to be passing mentions and directory listings, not the substantial coverage required for notability. These books give only a sentence each to the subject but this one appears to have substantial coverage, as the subject appears as a section heading with coverage going on to the following page. The real clincher, however, is this, a 25-page peer-reviewed paper in a major journal that, from its abstract, we can see focuses largely on this organisation's activities. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. For those with FUTON bias I just found this. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've had a read through the PDF you linked. The title is Antwerp Papers in Linguistics: Text Editing, From a Talent to a Scientific Discipline. Having read through it I have to say it fails WP:N's requirement of "substantial coverage" (or whatever we're calling it these days) of the SATI. The one section of the paper that deals with text editing in South Africa does not cover the South African Translator's Institute but rather reports the results of a survey taken of SATI's members, a survey which in fact does NOT revolve around SATI itself but rather around a code of ethics for text editors. IMHO there is nothing in the paper that can be used to provide source material in the article, because there is nothing in the source material about SATI the organisation. Furthermore, the title and abstract of the other links you provided certainly do not indicate that there is any substantial or significant coverage of this organisation, at least not to the extent that it can be used to fill out the article, which is what WP:N asks for. Zunaid 09:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The PDF appears to include the "clincher" article. That article was written by the secretary of SATI (as can be found on p. 83 of the PDF). It is not the least bit independent. Bongo matic 06:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if third party sources are writing about it, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. I think this is an object lesson in attempting to improve an article before deleting it. We're not short on space. T L Miles (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But where are these third party sources? Please see my response above. The third party sources quoted above are not actually about the organisation. I'm not averse to the article being rewritten, but thus far have not been convinced that sufficient sources out there exist to write an independent article. Zunaid 09:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the third party sources? those linked above. They are not books devoted to this organisation, but they show a) it exists b) what it's purpose is c) what it actually does. The Eva Hung mention, on page 209, establishes its notability beyond any reasonable doubt, as you have an independent written source saying this organisation offers accreditation and doing so is an important step in the professionalisation of the field in SA. I'm not sure what "not actually about the organisation" means, if the organisation's activities are being discussed. Do you mean that this org is not the primary focus of these articles? That's not required to establish notability. As "sufficient sources out there exist to write an independent article": the article created need not be extensive. If self referential material needs to be cut from the article, then cut it ruthlessly. Perhaps the article needs to be rewritten completely. But I'm really confused why that would mean we should not have an article on Wikipedia about this org, which is what a deletion is aimed at. You seem to be killing flies with hammers, here. And in the time spent creating this AFD the article could have been cleaned up. T L Miles (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Phil Bridger and TL Miles. The gbooks results, especially Language in South Africa mentioned by Phil, and the Towards a code of ethics for text editors paper linked above (see p66-67 & 70) are sufficient RSs. The preview, but not the snippet for Language in South Africa, which has a section on SATI on pp. 433-34 mentions the existence of an "unpublished" (in 1995) history of SATI by Dr. JH... If it is in any major library, it may count as another and a very substantial RS. The introduction to Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies vol 25 #2, 2007, explains that the issue is devoted to papers presented for SATI's 50th anniversary. The article by Beukes gives some history of translation in SA, with an account "of the modes of governmentality embodied by the South African Translators’ Association."John Z (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On balance, a sufficient amount of evidence for notability. Being a national accrediting agency is significant enough. DGG (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2009 (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.