Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Hoffman


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 03:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Hoffman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable scholar. Fails WP:NACADEMICS. In particular, the impact his work has had on his scholarly discipline (i.e., philosophy and theology) does not seem to be significant, so far. Edcolins (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  21:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  21:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The article seems to have an okay number of sources linked. I don't know the bulk of them so I can't say if they're reliable, but if they are, I think seven sources are acceptable at best for a stud. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The number of sources is not really relevant (see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES). And I don't think the sources establish the notability of the subject. The first three are book reviews, the next three apparently relate to relatives of Joshua Hoffman, and the last one is a list of bridge players. --Edcolins (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a compelling point. Perhaps the creator and/or person who added the sources explain themselves and why selected those particular sources. Furthermore, they should be given the chance to prove the subjects notability which is seemingly apparent to them; I suggest pinging them or something. Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the book reviews. Multiple full-length reviews in indepedent sources would represent a common path to notability for authors and academics ("significant critical attention" under WP:AUTHOR). I agree that there are some trivial sources about relatives and bridge, but I don't think they affect the notability established by the reviews. EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTHOR reads: "3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject (...) of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The two book reviews alone are not sufficient, the work must also be "a significant or well-known work". Is Substance: Its Nature and Existence a significant or well-known work? --Edcolins (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that it is. It's easy to locate even more sources than what appears in the article. I can't imagine that all of these sources would discuss Hoffman, the Hoffman-Rosenkrantz theory or the pair's works if they were insignificant. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced. The four requirements you introduced with the words "Hoffman has created four requirements for a Aristotelean theory..." seem to originate from a single source. Google returns two hits for the first criterion "substancehood must be an ontological category", the cited web page and, now, the Wikipedia article. (Furthermore, the source does not seem to use the verb "create" but "defend".) If these four requirements were significant, I would expect the first one to at least appear in more than one source. Just because the person stated or wrote something does not mean that this belongs to Wikipedia, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Edcolins (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really arguing for the notability of the individual requirements, but if you google "Hoffman Rosenkrantz theory" I think you'll find some decently in-depth discussion of Hoffman's work. I'll try to add some of those sources later tonight. EricEnfermero (Talk)|

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I googled "Hoffman Rosenkrantz theory" and found only one occurrence... written by Hoffman himself in a work edited by Tuomas E. Tahko, and nothing on Google Scholar. --Edcolins (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In regard to "defend", I changed the wording to "has supported". After looking at it more carefully, I noticed that the source first says "attempts to lay down" and then says "defends". I left it as "has supported" but I'm not sure if it's a big deal anyway. EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Hoffman Rosenkrantz theory" does not seem to be well-known, and Substance: Its Nature and Existence does not appear to be a significant or well-known work. To me, WP:AUTHOR is not met. I don't think that being paraphrased or referred to in a few books or papers is sufficient. --Edcolins (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - References 1 and 2 both discuss a 1997 book co-authored by the subject, but not the subject and hence do not demonstrate notability of the subject. Similarly reference 3 discusses a 1994 book from the same co-authors.  References 4 - 6 discuss some assertions made in, again, the 1997 book.  The 1997 book might enjoy some limited notability in esoteric philosophy circles, but nothing suggests that the subject does.--Rpclod (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the consideration. The 1997 book is held in 900 libraries per Worldcat. I don't want to belabor the point, but I think it might be a stretch to refer to that as esoterica. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to new article - I recommend redirecting to a new article, Hoffman–Rosenkrantz theory of substance, I'm finding coverage about the theory, but not much about Hoffman himself (although this is a somewhat common name). —Мандичка YO 😜 03:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I couldn't find significant coverage about the theory either. Only one occurrence written by Hoffman himself in a work edited by Tuomas E. Tahko. Setting aside all the copies/forks of the Wikipedia article, can you elaborate on the coverage you found? --Edcolins (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete—Per observations of Edcolins, notability of the subject has not been established. Arguably, any encyclopedic relevance is limited to the two co-authors' contributions to notably interesting topics such as Omnipotence paradox, in which article there is some justification for citing the contributions and evaluating their worth. Bjenks (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Edcolins it fail WP:NACADEMICS and do not think the book Substance: Its Nature and Existence. helps the subject meet WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2015 (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.