Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Hoehner

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Hoehner

[edit]
Harold Hoehner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete: Nomination withdrawn fails WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria #5, as Dallas Theological Seminary is not a "major institution of higher education and research", and articulates no other claim of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: DGG has added material to the article, but it is still just a resume+bibliography, lacking any third-party sourcing, or encyclopaedic biographical detail. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am withdrawing my nomination as I have been informed that, first impressions notwithstanding, DTS is a major institution. I would however suggest that it would prevent further misapprehension, and be a less misleading treatment of the subjects, if both the article on Hoehner & on DTS gave a clearer articulation of their notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An inadequate article does not always mean inadequate notability, nor does teaching at a non-mainstream university mean lack of a distinguished record. It turns out from search in WorldCat that his major book, published by Cambridge University press, is held in over 550 libraries., and he has 3 other books held in over 200 libraries each. (I added them) Having that sort of publication record including a press of the highest possible standard in the subject shows recognition as an expert in the field, and meets WP:PROF. it is wiser to look before nominating for deletion--one might be able to improve an article. I haven't yet looked for papers and other books. Yes, I am a little surprised at such a record for someone with the board membership he has, but that's just my prejudices showing. DGG (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no adequate sourcing, means no reason to presume the existence of adequate (and particularly third party) sources, which in turn means no presumption of notability. I would further point out that citing the number of libraries holding his books is WP:BIGNUMBER and does not address any of the specific criteria (the closest would be #1, but that criteria must be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources" -- not mere library-search hits) of WP:ACADEMIC (or even of WP:BK for that matter). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DTS probably counts as major enough in its field for #5, and he is one of 3 distinguished profs there along with John D. Hannah and J. Dwight Pentecost. His books, like the Herod Antipas one are clearly taken seriously. 550 is indeed a big number, people with books half that widely held usually pass, under criterion #1 or #4 (see Notes and Examples #12). Gbooks has links to scholarly reviews of it. This review of another book calls Hoehner's "For more than thirty years the standard comprehensive study".John Z (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per John Z, DTS is certainly among the top handful of influential seminaries in the U.S. Article can obviously be improved, and should be. Per a Google News search, Hoehner appears to have been quoted by the NYT, per Google scholar his books appear to be cited by others in his field, which makes sense in light of Google books' knowledge of books bearing or mentioning his name. There's no question that Hoehner meets the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator is demonstrating his ignorance, DTS is definitely one of the top seminaries in the U.S. and qualifies as a major institution of higher education and relevance for this field. (I don't care for the theology they are the flagship seminary of, but they are what they are, and it would be much less a part of American culture (e.g. the Left Behind series if they weren't as influential as they are.) The major institutions in religious education are generally not the major institutions in secular education. The major technical schools generally don't have a seminary program, the major liberal arts schools generally no longer have a significant seminary (though the began centuries ago with a focus on that form of education). Jclemens, and DGG know what they are doing, and John Z's evidence is also convincing. And I see at least one scholarly paper on contrasting his theory for interpreting a particular biblical passage with another theory that has itself been cited. When people are citing papers like this, it is safe to conclude that the scholar is significant and merit an article - it is also time to conclude that the material exists for us to write about his work, but that effort just hasn't been done yet. This isn't a close call. GRBerry 16:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I freely admit my ignorance. Neither the article on DTS nor Dispensationalism gave much impression of prominence (the fact that the latter appears to be associated with no particular Christian denomination further diffuses any impression of prominence). If I was premature in this nomination, then I apologise. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the attention that it has already gotten due to this AfD, including the 'rescue' template, I see very little chance that it will be turned into a "decent bio stub" once the spotlight has been removed. There's nothing I can do at this stage, but I have to question the value of the concept of 'inherent notability' that perpetuates the survival of articles with no substantive content. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol. Then you've missed quite a few stubbies running around that are all of a sentence or two. That's the nature of a volunteer-led encyclopedia. Articles limp along sometimes until the right editor dusts it off and starts fixing it. We're not in a rush but boldness is also encouraged. -- Banjeboi 13:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do such insubstantial stubs actually aid in the eventual creation of these articles? And what proportion of these stubs are actually improved into 'decent stub' status (let alone non-stub article) in anything vaguely resembling a timely manner? As far as I can see, wikidedia keep no metrics on stub-creation and/or expansion, so these questions may be unanswerable. However its failure to be able to answer such questions severely weakens any argument for the retention of such insubstantial stubs. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These things actually do work, much like Redlinks which wikilink to an article that someone thinks should exist but doesn't yet. There are projects devoted to all aspects so likely data along these lines does exist. There is, for instance, a project devoted just to stub sorting. There is also many sayings along the lines that the higher quality of article, the more likely it is notable with the inverse also in effect. -- Banjeboi 13:53, 2 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Hoehner&oldid=1137900054"