Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Alfieri

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 delete. Sandstein 08:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Alfieri

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is on a list of articles produced by machine translation, and was tagged with teh special speedy deletion criterion X2 for such articles. However, it does not seem to me to have the poor quality of text described in the discussions which authorized X2. What I cannot judge is the accuracy of the translation, both because of my limited language skills, and because no link to the original text is provided. However, a spot check of sources seems to indicate that they support the current test. There have been quite a few edits, many by experienced editors, since this was created, adding formatting and source citations, but the prose text is almost entirely unchanged from the initial version in the history. This is a procedural nomination. I express no opinion on whether this should be kept, deleted, or moved to draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Citations low for a very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this for X2 because it's a machine-translation of a BLP. The justification for CSD X2 is that machine translations can distort or in some cases even invert the meaning of the original text. It's not about the poor quality of the English (which isn't actually that terrible) -- it's the fact that no human editor has confirmed the accuracy of the translation. If a human editor with dual fluency in English and Italian is willing to confirm that our text means the same as this text then X2 would not apply. But until that happens, I maintain that it does. I feel that DESiegel has made an error of judgment in declining the X2. It doesn't matter that the English is plausible. What matters is whether it's correct.—S Marshall T/C 16:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Italian wikipedia. Not every Italian doctor is notable per the English wikipedia guidelines. The article itself is also of stupendously poor quality and is likely not salvageable in a way that meets English language sourcing requirements. 107.77.204.106 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to bludgeon this discussion but I do feel the need to respond to this one. Notability isn't country-specific on Wikipedia, and sources do not have to be in English. If someone's got two separate reliable sources for their biography, then the community considers that person notable -- even if those sources are in Italian (or German, as is also likely with Prof. Dr Alfieri, or indeed in Swahili). I think it's quite likely that this gentleman is a notable person and a perfectly acceptable article can be written in this space. This is one of those rare AfDs that isn't basically about notability. This discussion in which the community authorised speedy deletion of these 3,603 articles will give you a bit more context; it's all a bit outside the norm.—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability indeed isn't country-specific on Wikipedias, but different Wikipedia have different standards of notability. If an article appears on one Wikipedia it does not follow that it is notable enough to appear on all of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Two seperate, reliable sources does not automatically make someone notable. However, the language of the sources has no bearing on notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC. He's the author of 59 peer reviewed journal articles in my university database and his position as Chief of Neurosurgery at a major Swiss research hospital would seem to meet criterias #5 as well.4meter4 (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff does not confer notability. Position is too minor to statisfy WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete In terms of what is in the article rather than searching, does not meet the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC (in response to 4meter4's point, by my reading of #5's Financial_endowment#Endowed_professorships, "chariman" is not equal to "has held a named chair appointment") or WP:BIO and no WP:SIGCOV (only 2 primary sources) so does not pass WP:GNG. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACADEMIC. As a BLP the criterion is more stringent than just two reliable sources out of only three. If we are going to accept "machine translations" with no human oversight or as mentioned above that, "no human editor has confirmed the accuracy of the translation", so we are taking a machines proverbial word of notability, then maybe most of us can just retire and let the machines handle it all. I agree that something deemed notable in one country may not be seen as notable in another as the standards vary. There are of course "world notable subjects" but also "country notable" subjects. Any rationale short of that means we can just stop dancing around and merge all languages into a one world encyclopedia with a drop-down box for the different translations. We are digressing down to two reliable independent sources when three has been an acceptable community standard that shows clear notability. I also agree though, that some human intervention might sway things. Otr500 (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2019 (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.