582:- 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.--
490:
424:
and, now, the
Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG), per
423:
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
381:
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
345:
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.
644:
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 Knowledge (XXG) article, can you elaborate on the coverage you found?
511:
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.
442:
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.
408:
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.
165:
304:
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,
239:
217:
360:
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
670:, 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
261:
118:
159:
281:
364:). 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.
200:. 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.
125:
489:
I googled "Hoffman
Rosenkrantz theory" and found only one occurrence... written by Hoffman himself in a work edited by Tuomas E. Tahko
91:
86:
17:
95:
708:
78:
620:
180:
327:). And I don't think the sources establish the notability of the subject. The first three are book reviews, the next three
147:
556:
460:
731:
623:, I'm finding coverage about the theory, but not much about Hoffman himself (although this is a somewhat common name).
40:
704:
425:
493:
324:
141:
605:
517:
448:
414:
369:
351:
310:
712:
696:
683:
654:
635:
609:
591:
571:
543:
521:
504:
478:
437:
418:
395:
373:
355:
340:
314:
293:
273:
253:
231:
209:
197:
137:
60:
597:
534:
is not met. I don't think that being paraphrased or referred to in a few books or papers is sufficient. --
248:
226:
82:
727:
674:, in which article there is some justification for citing the contributions and evaluating their worth.
567:
36:
600:. I don't want to belabor the point, but I think it might be a stretch to refer to that as esoterica.
187:
74:
66:
671:
173:
700:
531:
378:
361:
650:
601:
539:
513:
500:
444:
433:
410:
391:
365:
347:
336:
306:
205:
474:
289:
269:
243:
221:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
726:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
679:
587:
153:
624:
699:
and do not think the book
Substance: Its Nature and Existence. helps the subject meet
331:
relate to relatives of Joshua
Hoffman, and the last one is a list of bridge players. --
692:
667:
646:
535:
496:
429:
387:
332:
201:
470:
285:
265:
112:
675:
583:
53:
559:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
463:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
596:
I appreciate the consideration. The 1997 book is held in 900 libraries per
526:
The "Hoffman
Rosenkrantz theory" does not seem to be well-known, and
720:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
530:
does not appear to be a significant or well-known work. To me,
240:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
218:
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
382:
work must also be "a significant or well-known work". Is
108:
104:
100:
172:
565:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
469:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
186:
323:The number of sources is not really relevant (see
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
734:). No further edits should be made to this page.
262:list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions
8:
619:- I recommend redirecting to a new article,
282:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
280:Note: This debate has been included in the
260:Note: This debate has been included in the
238:Note: This debate has been included in the
216:Note: This debate has been included in the
279:
259:
237:
215:
621:Hoffman–Rosenkrantz theory of substance
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
386:a significant or well-known work? --
528:Substance: Its Nature and Existence
384:Substance: Its Nature and Existence
24:
492:, and nothing on Google Scholar
1:
196:Non-notable scholar. Fails
751:
254:21:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
232:21:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
210:20:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
723:Please do not modify it.
713:00:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
684:00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
655:08:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
636:03:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
610:03:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
592:02:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
572:01:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
61:03:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
617:Redirect to new article
544:19:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
522:13:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
505:19:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
479:00:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
438:20:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
419:21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
396:20:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
374:13:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
356:20:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
341:20:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
315:18:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
294:01:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
274:01:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
705:Pharaoh of the Wizards
666:—Per observations of
672:Omnipotence paradox
574:
481:
426:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
296:
276:
256:
234:
59:
742:
725:
632:
570:
564:
562:
560:
468:
466:
464:
325:WP:LOTSOFSOURCES
251:
246:
229:
224:
191:
190:
176:
128:
116:
98:
58:
56:
34:
750:
749:
745:
744:
743:
741:
740:
739:
738:
732:deletion review
721:
625:
575:
566:
555:
553:
482:
459:
457:
249:
244:
227:
222:
133:
124:
89:
73:
70:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
748:
746:
737:
736:
716:
715:
686:
660:
659:
658:
657:
639:
638:
614:
613:
612:
563:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
509:
508:
507:
467:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
318:
317:
298:
297:
277:
257:
235:
194:
193:
130:
75:Joshua Hoffman
69:
67:Joshua Hoffman
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
747:
735:
733:
729:
724:
718:
717:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:WP:NACADEMICS
694:
690:
687:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
662:
661:
656:
652:
648:
643:
642:
641:
640:
637:
633:
631:
630:
622:
618:
615:
611:
607:
603:
602:EricEnfermero
599:
595:
594:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
576:
573:
569:
568:North America
561:
558:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
514:EricEnfermero
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
491:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
480:
476:
472:
465:
462:
450:
446:
445:EricEnfermero
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
411:EricEnfermero
397:
393:
389:
385:
380:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
366:EricEnfermero
363:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
348:Jonas Vinther
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:
320:
319:
316:
312:
308:
307:Jonas Vinther
303:
300:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
278:
275:
271:
267:
263:
258:
255:
252:
247:
241:
236:
233:
230:
225:
219:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:WP:NACADEMICS
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
127:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
722:
719:
688:
663:
628:
627:
616:
579:
554:
527:
458:
383:
352:speak to me!
328:
311:speak to me!
301:
245:Everymorning
223:Everymorning
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
121:
49:
47:
31:
28:
160:free images
329:apparently
728:talk page
701:WP:AUTHOR
532:WP:AUTHOR
379:WP:AUTHOR
362:WP:AUTHOR
286:• Gene93k
266:• Gene93k
37:talk page
730:or in a
695:it fail
693:Edcolins
668:Edcolins
647:Edcolins
629:Мандичка
598:Worldcat
557:Relisted
536:Edcolins
497:Edcolins
461:Relisted
430:Edcolins
388:Edcolins
333:Edcolins
202:Edcolins
119:View log
39:or in a
471:Natg 19
302:Comment
166:WP refs
154:scholar
92:protect
87:history
689:Delete
676:Bjenks
664:Delete
584:Rpclod
580:delete
346:Best,
138:Google
96:delete
50:delete
578:Weak
181:JSTOR
142:books
126:Stats
113:views
105:watch
101:links
55:slakr
16:<
709:talk
691:Per
680:talk
651:talk
606:Talk
588:talk
540:talk
518:Talk
501:talk
495:. --
475:talk
449:Talk
434:talk
428:. --
415:Talk
392:talk
370:Talk
337:talk
290:talk
270:talk
250:talk
228:talk
206:talk
174:FENS
148:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
634:😜
350:• (
309:• (
188:TWL
117:– (
52:.
711:)
682:)
653:)
645:--
608:)
590:)
542:)
520:)
503:)
477:)
451:)|
436:)
417:)
394:)
372:)
354:)
339:)
313:)
292:)
284:.
272:)
264:.
242:.
220:.
208:)
168:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
707:(
703:.
678:(
649:(
626:—
604:(
586:(
538:(
516:(
499:(
473:(
447:(
432:(
413:(
390:(
368:(
335:(
288:(
268:(
204:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
122:·
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.