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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony M. Esolen[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:PROF. He is in fact a translator of notable works, but he WP:INHERITs nothing as far as notability. JFHJr (㊟) 04:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This guy fails WP:GNG as well as WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[See below: Opinion changed! ~~*Delete~~ As this stands there is no evidence given of genuine notability. Short of someone finding various positive references in peer reviews/articles on Dante and similar academic works there is no reason to keep this. Jpacobb (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- Has anyone argued that doing a translation of a great work conveys notability and gets a WP:INHERIT warning? I don't think so. But a great, and critically praised, translation of a work (great or not), is notable. One looks for reviews of the translations to see whether this is true or not, as Jpacobb suggests, and they are there in spades. JSTOR: reviews of his Tasso translation in the top journals of the field: Translation and Literature: "offers a great deal...excellent notes" (by Barbara Reynolds; a superstar of the opposite translation tradition), International Journal of the Classical Tradition: "Esolen easily supplants the...competition; his is a highly readable translation with considerable narrative drive and a good deal of local vigor and interest", Sixteenth-Century Journal: "Because Esolen takes such care to make the text accessible, he offers an excellent introduction to Tasso for new generations of readers, and he succeeds in awaking an interest in the original Italian, as well as in all ofTasso's works, with this translation." Reviews of his Lucretius, Spenser, and Dante abound -- there's not time to read all the praise for Esolen in them. But just suffice to say that The Modern Library chose his translation of the Divine Comedy for their series -- this is not in any way a minor press, but the kind of extremely highly regarded publisher that has the money and reputation to attract the best and most notable of translators. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Guys, I got JSTOR added to the Find sources template for a reason! His translations have been reviewed in a couple of scholarly journals, as Mscuthbert points out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am changing my opinion in the light of Michael Scott Cuthbert's contribution: there is now sufficient evidence of notability. Can it be worked into the article please? Jpacobb (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do so once the AfD gets closer to the end if it looks like the balance is for keep. Thanks for reconsidering! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- He's among the best-known translators of classic texts now at work in America. For what it's worth, Anthony M. Esolen gave me 52 hits on Amazon and (in quotation marks) 283,000 hits on Google. Tillander 04:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a review of one of his translations here. The review makes significant remarks about Esolen's style etc. and is largely positive. There is another review here. This one is negative, but glowing reviews aren't needed for notability. There is still another one, again positive, here. The last source is not a neutral one (it is effectively a magazine of the Catholic Church) but is high quality especially for literary stuff. That is after skipping the JSTOR references others have pointed out. Churn and change (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a periphery look at the lead shows that his translations are major, important works of history. Definitely notable. --Activism1234 05:05, 30 September 2012 (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.