Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank L. 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, and kudos for a very well researched nom. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank L. Hoffman[edit]

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

Delete because the subject of article fails general notability guideline and WP:BIO. The article was formerly tagged for notability issues and was PRODed at one time, but the creator of the article removed the tags.

The article does cite a large number of sources, but this is deceptive -- Hoffman does not pass general notability. To the extent that the biographical content in the article is supported by sources, the sources are not independent of the subject. Most of the content is sourced to his website, all-creatures.org, or his Facebook page, or websites of other organizations whose content is hosted on the all-creatures website. Many of the other reference citations and external links in the article either have no apparent relevance to the article or are cited in support of some statement or factoid that is, at best, peripheral to the article. (For example, an Amazon page about Rabbi Schmuel Asher is cited in support of a statement about Rabbi Asher; there is no citation support for the article's statement about Hoffman's relationship to Asher. Another reference citation explains the etymological derivation of the term "methodism", apparently to support some original research about Hoffman's theology.) The closest thing to third-party coverage that I have found for Hoffman consists of interviews on local community radio stations. His name also has been mentioned in passing in at least one newspaper article (in the Berkshire Eagle) and there's an item (one that I can't see) in the Cherry Hill, New Jersey, newspaper that is cited in a fashion that suggests that he might be mentioned in it, or possibly wrote it. Interviews on community radio and passing mentions elsewhere do not indicate notability. (Also note that at least one of his local radio appearances was on Animals Today Radio, which is sponsored by an organization on whose board of directors he serves: [1].)

The main personal accomplishments documented in the article are serving as minister for several local churches and operating the all-creatures.org website. These are worthy activities, but they don't pass WP:BIO. Orlady (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with what Orlady has stated. Another example is the section "Recognition by evangelical Christian groups" under the "Recognition" section. Three refs are used. First one goes to his website. The second goes to a forum that has who knows what (has Hitler and Bush saluting). The third is on a personal blog type site that has a short sermon of Hoffman's. The three unreliable sources show absolutely no recognition and do not source the paragraph. The sources in the article not related to Hoffman's websites have brief mentions or interviews. Does not pass WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Orlady's very thorough assessment of the sources. Undoubtedly fails general notability guideline and WP:BIO. Finnegas (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2014 (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.