Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve 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 No consensus. As several said in this discussion an edit war doesn't justify an article of being deleted. However, to the keep voters please provide some references to help satisfy WP:V and WP:N because as of now there is no sources provided which gives me the impression that it is borderline notable. I'm giving this article a chance to be improved.--JForget 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Hoffman

should be deleted. For too long an edit war has taken place over the entry and/or removal of a supposedly controversial section. Having read the opinions of wikipedia editors I have lost faith in their ability to judge sources and feel that the only solution is to remove this person from the wiki. After all, he is really a very minor character in the world of music, neither composing nor performing. Kalowski 09:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalowski, I agree on your comments. The particular editor protecting Steve Hoffman's page, iMHO, leaves much to be desired. He has been presented tangible evidence of his mistakes in protecting the page, proof about every allegation made, and he avoids discussion entirely. He, in fact, has made me lose confidence in Wikipedia and its modus operandi. I vote for deletion. EricGoberman 14:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Note both Kalowski and EricGoberman are new editors. --Ronz 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- the page doesn't note it has been nominated for deletion ? Thunderwing 13:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's protected, so an admin needs to add the template. Hut 8.5 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the template. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- I've had enough of this edit war & the irrational decisions made by affiliates of Steve Hoffman. (this vote was mine, forgot to log in) Sidar 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- behavior of editors is no reason to delete an article. Hoffman appears to be very notable in the audiophile world, called a "veteran recording engineer" in a recent LA Times article. (See Talk:Steve_Hoffman#Possible_references) --Ronz 15:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There are still five proposed references on the article talk page that appear to show notability of the subject that no one has contended. --Ronz 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. JJL 16:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Ronz's statement Red Fiona 16:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and I cannot accept Ronz's reasoning. The LA Times is no more authoritative than the Houston Press. If the LA Times articles is acceptable then return the Contraversy section and I will no longer call for the section to be deleted. Kalowski 17:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. I see no valid reason offered for deletion. Edit warring is a separate behavioral issue. Deletions are a content matter. We don't delete articles simply because people can't get alongWikidemo 17:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Note both Kalowski and EricGoberman are new editors. --Ronz 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)" This is true... however this is also irrelevant. Kalowski 18:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:AFD, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. This is a standard note to put in a discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The existence of controversy is invalid as a rationale for deletion. AFD is not for content disputes. Please use dispute resolution processes in the future. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. The main problem with the article is the underlying edit war. The only ones who are even discussing are those who want the Controversy section in - the ones who are removing it aren't even showing up on the talk page, and it has been suggested (more than once) that they are conflicted! Someone needs to, after this article is finished, hand out {{uw-coi}} to every editor who has been shown to have one, unprot the article, and aggressively revert and warn those who keep making COI edits. RfCs, Mediation, etc. won't work because these editors don't parley. This nonsense should end. Wikipedia is not a public-relations tool. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Does not meet criteria for deletion set at WP:DELETE. An edit war over sourced content is not a grounds for deletion. dissolve^talk 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Funny how all the people willing to "keep" the article aren't willing to discuss why the "Controversy" section should be deleted - they just want it deleted. After properly documenting this section, Ronz insists it should be deleted because it doesn't "meet his criteria" (a Houston Press article), and then justifies keeping the article because he found an LA Times article. This is ridiculous - either leave in all documented sections, or delete the whole article, since it's basically useless in its current state. EricGoberman 04:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Funny how..." As has already been pointed out multiple times, this is a forum for discussions of article deletion, not content disputes. --Ronz 20:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're saying the Houston Press article shows notability, so your vote should be Keep, right? --Ronz 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

His notability is based on both his remastering work and the disappearance of master tapes under his responsability. As long as both sides of his career are shown, my vote would be Keep. Unfortunately, SH representatives (with a conflict of interest, as demonstrated in the talk page for Steve Hoffman) are repeatedly vandalizing the entry, deleting anything they deem to be not in the best interest of their boss. Due to this fact, I vote "delete" - there's no way to mantain a non-biased article on him. EricGoberman 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete- for lack of notability and above reasons.JJJ999 05:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I know absolutely nothing about the controversy, and have not bothered to learn anything, but the keep or delete discussion on the notability of the person involved should involve that, only. And there is nothing in the article to indicate that this person is notable. Being an audio engineer is not de facto a notability, and other than that, what makes him notable? The article doesn't say. Therefore, he fails notability criteria. Corvus cornix 21:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The talk page lists multiple sources that appear to indicate notability. (See Talk:Steve_Hoffman#Possible_references) --Ronz 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[1] - one sentence with no claim of notability

[2] - requires registration, so I can't read it.

[3] - requires registration to read, I'm not sure this is a reliable site, anyway.

[4] - requires payment to read article. Corvus cornix 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the references. Note that on the second page of the first article, Hoffman is quoted multiple times as an expert. --Ronz 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, Ronz, that Hoffman is quoted multiple times as an expert. I notice:

• ...veteran recording engineers such as Steve Hoffman, Gustavo Hidalgo and Elliot Midwood...
• Hoffman then proffers an opinion on capturing recorded sound.
• And Hoffman, who commands high fees for his commercial work...
• And then a final quote from Hoffman
  • The other veteran recording engineers Gustavo Hidalgo and Elliot Midwood do not have pages on Wikipedia. I submit that the only thing that makes Hoffman different and thus more interesting than any other veteran recording engineer is the controversy surrounding his dismissal. Without that section there is no notability. Delete

Kalowski 11:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're arguing that we have a source that shows notability. Your nomination of the article for deletion then should be withdrawn by your own admission that the subject is notable. --Ronz 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Ronz Well, Ronz, I am admitting that I wrote the following:

I submit that the only thing that makes Hoffman different and thus more interesting than any other veteran recording engineer is the controversy surrounding his dismissal. Without that section there is no notability.

so if the controversy section is reinstated the subject will be notable and I will withdraw my nomination for deletion. Does that make sense? Kalowski 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• deleteQuoting someone as an expert does not justify a Wikipedia entry. If it did, I would add a friend of mine who is quoted as an expert in the biology field in many journals and newspapers. There are many sound engineers, mastering engineers, studio professionals, etc. that do not have Wiki entries. Mr. Hoffman has a popular Internet forum with many members. This alone does not justify an entry either. The members of his forum are the ones that are continually deleting relevant facts from this entry (COI) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huberman (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, being identified as an expert by enough reliable sources does indeed make the subject notable. See WP:BIO --Ronz 15:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete - not notable. Rklawton 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Regarding notability, keep in mind the article is in the middle of an edit war and is fully protected so any non-admin can't edit it. Claims to notability that are available in the articles history have been removed from it's current state. For WP:N, there are multiple independent reliable sources about the subject:[5][6][7], also not on the web are features in the L.A. Times, Audiophile magazine, and Tape Op magazine. To peruse (many) notable recordings he's worked on: [8] dissolve^talk 16:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd counter-argue that Steve Hoffman or his representatives have been politely asked to discuss the issue on SH's Talk page. So far, they haven't engaged in conversation with the editors who believe the "Controversy" section should be kept. They haven't supported SH's notability by posting source material, either - so far, the notability arguments have been supported by the same people who believe the "Controversy" section should not be deleted. 200.38.162.11 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Bob Ludwig is the only other notable remaster engineer on Wikipedia. His work is much more expansive than that of Mr. Hoffman, who really is not notable outside of a small circle of so-called audiophiles. He is just a minor player in the world of CD reissues, not deserving of an article. Sidar 02:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe that the sources found by Ronz in Talk:Steve Hoffman#Possible references are enough to show notability. I still don't know whether the charges about mishandling of master tapes belong in the article (the 'Controversy' section) since the only thing backing that up is the single 1996 article in the Houston Press, a free alternative weekly paper. That issue is being discussed at WP:BLPN, and others are welcome to chime in there. As for AfD, I think our usual criteria for keeping the article are satisfed. I agree there are some notable audio engineers like Bob Ludwig who have won awards, and I don't see any reports that Steve H. has. However Ludwig has been (correctly) given a much longer article. EdJohnston 12:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• 5 days are up. What's the decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricGoberman (talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 October 2007 (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.