Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Douglas P. Hill

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. A Train^talk 06:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

W. Douglas P. Hill

W. Douglas P. Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:PROF. There is only one scholarly work attributed to him—his translation of the Bhagavad Gita—and according to Bhagavad Gita#Commentaries and translations these are two a penny. The claim that he was a "scholar" at Cambridge is sourced only to his own book, and doesn't sound like an academic position; it could well just refer to him having studied there. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Google Books seems to suggest that he meets WP:AUTHOR as "widely cited by peers or successors". Hinduresci (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I am sure there are at least 10 to 20 independent and reliable published sources that cite and/or discuss his works which also include his translation of the Ramcharitmanas. Hinduresci (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As I see it there are two problems here. One is that I don't think the many repetitions of "W. Douglas P. Hill published a translation" in other translations and commentaries of the Gita can be described as widely cited. It is routine to review previous efforts when writing a scholarly translation or commentary, and I'm not seeing any coverage that goes beyond that. Or put another way: where are the sources that would allow us to expand this article beyond a stub that says "Hill published a translation of the Bhagavad Gita"? Second, and I know this has come up in AfDs of translators before, it's not Hill's original work that is widely cited, it's the fact that he happened to translate a highly notable work, which automatically produces a lot of run-of-the-mill citations. But notability is not inherited, and as mentioned in Bhagavad Gita#Commentaries and translations, there are more than 40 translations of the Gita into English alone. It's not particularly noteworthy to have published one of them, even if it's amongst the more well-received of the bunch. – Joe (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I reckon now there is strong evidence that the article could be expanded beyond a stub that says "Hill published a translation of the Bhagavad Gita". And I was actually well aware of the existence of that evidence before creating the article. I was even in the process of including it in the article before it was brought here. Hinduresci (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. I tried and failed to find anything more to say about him than that he translated this one book. The long pull quote pointed to by Hinduresci doesn't add much. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid, you seem to overlook the four distinct sources added in the Further reading section. I believe you are therefore mistaken. Hinduresci (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the aforementioned sources seems to suggest that Lionel Barnett published a review of Hill's book on the Gita in JRAS in 1929. Hinduresci (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, for example, Arvind Sharma's treatment of Hill's work clearly appears substantial. Hinduresci (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no further reading section in the version you pointed to. But those four sources look to me like routine scholarly citations, nothing that indicate notability. Notable scholars have thousands of citations of this kind to their work. Four is too few, and these four are too far from in-depth, to provide any notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

May I please request you to take a very good look at the sources. The coverage in most of them, if not all, indeed looks substantial; or in other words, the coverage definitely does not seem trivial, or for that matter routine. Hinduresci (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

And, sorry, mate, but there indeed was the Further reading section before I referred to it earlier! Hinduresci (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Your "strong evidence that the article could be expanded" link, which is the one I looked at, has no such section. Regardless, a handful of citations to Hill's work is unimpressive, uninteresting, and irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point that most of the sources cited in the article appear to discuss his work/s in substantial manners instead of merely citing them! Hinduresci (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

So you say. But to me those look like routine citations, not something we can build an article around. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

David (if I may), we can definitely build a pretty substantial article from those sources. Most of the sources that have been cited look far from routine citations. Hinduresci (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with David here. These sources might be useful for writing something like Translations of the Bhagavad Gita, in which Hill's book would definitely merit a section, but aren't very helpful when it comes to writing a biography of the author himself, and don't demonstrate his notability. – Joe (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That sounds kind of disappointing, though you seem to make sense! How about this though? Let's keep and expand the article as much as reaonably possible from the reliable sources, and eventually merge it in the article you mention presuming it will come into being sometime in the future. Hinduresci (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe there could actually be an article here on his work on the Gita, given the seeming fact that his work has been substantially discussed in presumably independent and reliable published sources. Hinduresci (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hinduresci: You might find WP:BLUDGEON to be helpful reading. You have said your piece, repeatedly. Now give it a rest. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed for the suggestion! But to be perfectly honest with you, I find my comments to be neither recurrent nor redundant. In the previous comment of mine, for instance, I was only attempting to suggest that maybe we could have an article on his work instead of an article on him which, I believe, is the very subject of this discussion. Hinduresci (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I realise that it's disappointing to have one's work nominated for deletion. If we're wrong and there is a substantial article hiding in these sources, the best way to prove it would be to go ahead and write it! Otherwise, like David said, I think it's best to just wait and see what other editors think. If the consensus is to delete, you can always ask for the content to be saved in your userspace if you want to try and rework it into another article on a more viable topic. – Joe (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. This is one of a number of pages Hinduresci built/rebuilt, such as The Mahābhārata (Smith book) and Kedar Joshi. I likewise can find no merit to keeping this particular article. The content itself is simply a quote extolling his accomplishment, which is not encyclopedic content. LordQwert (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Many of Hinduresci's recent edits seem to be to categorize authors which have translated the Bhagavad Gita, which seems to me to be a perfectly find list/category to have. I suspect this page was created in an attempt to be thorough, and not due to any particular agenda or maliciousness. LordQwert (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The basic reason I created the W. Douglas P. Hill article, or for that matter the Kedar Joshi or Ajaya: Roll of the Dice articles, is that I discerned the subject interesting as well as noteworthy (or important) to a fair degree. Hinduresci (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep  Evidence of notability is present in the article, including the Further reading section.  Notability is not a content requirement.  Adding material to an article "because it is a stub" is a bad idea.  It is up to editors if they think the topic fits better merged elsewhere.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. And the sole content requirement is "reliability", though a blog written and self-published by an amateur may, in fact, be perfectly reliable and a book written by a renowned academic and published by a very established publisher may be unreliable, in part, if not on the whole. Please do consult my post "The questionable reliability of the subject".

Now, in regard to the notability of biographical topics, it is not essential that the coverage required in the independent and reliable published sources must include the subject's date of birth, is it? Place of birth? Nope. Father's name? Nope. Mother's name? Nope. Spouse' name? Nope. Education? Nope. Then what is it about the subject (or the topic), precisely, that must exist in the coverage of it by such sources? Work? Maybe, yeah!! And it's right there when it comes to Hill, isn't it? In point of fact, all that is basically required for notability to be established is the objective (not subjective) evidence that the topic is unusual to be recorded. What's the explicit definition of unusual though? Put differently, is there a mathematical formula or something to figure whether Hill, for instance, is indeed unusual? How about this! Is it usual for an Indologist to have their work/s independently cited as prominently as the work/s of Hill? I don't think so. And if you do, and if you are indeed true, I reckon it must be reasonably possible to corroborate the affirmation of yours via statistics and objective evidence. — Hinduresci (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone suggested otherwise, Unscintillating. @Hinduresci: The community's consensus for what constitutes unusual coverage for a scholar can be found at WP:PROF, and includes some very objective criteria. That is the guideline I based this nomination on. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hill passes criterion 1 then! And that is precisely the point I have actually been trying to make through different words; since significant in "significant impact" mentioned in that criterion is not really quantified, is it? In other words, (unfortunately) it's pretty vague, isn't it? — Hinduresci (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel like we are going round in circles. What myself and David have argued is that Hill does not meet criterion #1 of WP:PROF, because there are only a small number of citations to his work, of the type that are routinely made to any academic work. Put another way, where are the independent, reliable sources that describe Hill has making a significant impact on Indology?

If you read the explanatory notes for C1, there is considerable clarification of what "significant impact" means in this context. And while many editors are (rightly) sceptical about adding metrics to the guideline, some quantifiable rules of thumb that are commonly mentioned at academic AfDs are that a h-index greater than 20, a single publication cited more than 1000 times, or multiple publications cited more than 100 times, shows clear significant impact. Now these vary greatly by field and I wouldn't actually apply them in Hill's case, but since you asked I wanted to say that there are quantifiable standards we sometimes use, and Hill is very far from meeting them. – Joe (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You said it, mate! these vary greatly by field, and let me subjoin that Hill is from Bhagavad Gita and stuff, not mathematics or for that matter physics. In short, the good essay of quantification does not appear exhaustive, leaving much to be desired when it comes to Hill. And as to your question "Where are the independent, reliable sources that describe Hill as making a significant impact on Indology?", would you not appreciate that it is obviously not necessary for the sources to say literally that he has had a significant impact? How about the UC Press source, for instance, which says, "W. Douglas P. Hill, who in 1928 gave us the most outstanding English rendering of the text..."! — Hinduresci (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

In other words, it is plainly unusual (not usual) for a work of translation of the Gita to have been described in an independent reliable (or scholarly) source as the most outstanding rendering ever. And the refutal must possibly be justifiable via objective evidence, which I am sure does not exist, since the topic is not usual. — Hinduresci (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

We need something that says he is more noteworthy than the average Indologist. At the moment, I'm not convinced he stands out even amongst translators of this one work. There's one source that says "outstanding" – the rest are just passing mentions. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

If he had not been more noteworthy than the average Indologist, hardly any independent scholarly source would have even cared to cite him; having been mentioned as most outstanding is rather too outstanding as to the mere worth of being noticed (notability, I mean)! — 12:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

And needless to say perhaps, average is universal, and not restricted to the UK (since he is rather presumed to be British). — Hinduresci (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me now make it as simple as possible. How many Indologists actually exist on this planet? And how many Indologists have been cited and described the way Hill has been? It is fairly obvious that the percentage is too low for Hill to be usual and deemed unworthy of notice. — Hinduresci (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

According to the snippet on Google scholar for the 1994 translation by F Edgerton, "To most Visnuites, and to most Hindus, the Bhagavad Glta is what the New Testament is to Christians."  Any English translator of the New Testament prior to the computer era is a topic of interest to general readers as well as scholars.  For example Noah Webster is well known for an early American translation.  The idea that we must ration our pages and so consider Indologists on the curve is completely out of step with a paperless encyclopedia.  The bottom line here is that we must work to preserve the value that others have added to the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: If anyone is at all trying to fathom the altitude of Hill's outstandingness by mounting already the hill of academics from notable institutions or even the most reputed ones like Oxford and Harvard, they are mistaken; for the altitude got to be measured from the ground. And let me tell you that Hill in fact looks (objectively) tall immensely even if you should place yourself onto the hill. — Hinduresci (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way! Sooooo many mortals dwelling on our planet are authors of some sort; published, self-published, bloggers, etc. etc. How many of them would (or rather should) really ever expect even a single independent and reliable source to say that their work(s) are most outstanding from their discipline(s)? Very, very few; which suggests Hill is very, very notable! — Hinduresci (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: Produced a well known translation ofThe Bhagavadgita. Nice to have some notes on old indologists. I have added references to two reviews of his translation by two authorities on the subject Lionel Barnett and Jarl Charpentier which convince me of notability. Barnett Mr Hill may be congratulated on having produced what is perhaps the best work on the Gita that has appeared for many years. And we also have Gelblum, Tuvia. [(1986). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 49(3), 594-595.] arguing that As early as 1928 W. Douglas P. Hill, one of the better known translators of the Bhagavadgita (BhG.), rather poignantly observed that it had become ' the playground of western pseudo-mystics (my bold)(Msrasnw (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC))

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep produced an annotated translation (i.e., a scholarly work of independent notability) that was for many years the most authoritative translation into English. His translation has been widely cited by scholars and writers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Referenced many times in Google Books, seems to be notable, as per previous Editor's comments. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep -- does meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF --EC Racing (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per significant and notable contributions; annotated translations help meet WP:AUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2017 (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.