Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Hoppe


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Geoffrey Hoppe

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I honestly can't even sort through the cruft here, but in my research, I don't see how this guy is notable - none of his "books" have received critical coverage from the expected sources, and almost every source is primary or a passing mention, or unreliable. And while AFD isn't the place to address tone, I'm quite concerned this has been here for a decade and presents it as if this is some legitimate experience as opposed to the actual quackery that it really is. Praxidicae (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC) To be honest I haven't looked at the article since the last time I worked on it (2013), but would be happy to go over it and come up with a list of suggestions for updates and in the process hope to be able to add a few, more reliable and notable 3rd party references if that would help to keep the article up. Anyway, just my two cents for now. Looking forward to your comments. And please keep in mind that this is the first time I participate in a article-for-deletion discussion, so if I don't follow the proper protocol I'd welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks! --MasterIAM (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Being the one who wrote the first version of the article I'll chime in. A few questions first:
 * 1) First of all, what do you mean by cruft? Are you talking about the code or the content (or maybe even both)?
 * 2) Secondly, what would be an 'expected source' for a Wikipedia article about a New Age channeler and his messages? Is there a Wikipedia list somewhere that I can check against?
 * 3) As for labelling the content as quackery - the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices - do you mean that the article is in bad shape? I would agree. It hasn't been updated significantly since it's inception ten years ago. But then an update seems more appropriate than deleting it. Or do you mean to say that it covers a topic that you're not interested in or you feel has no place on Wikipedia for whatever reason? Please elaborate.

Meanwhile I tried to do some research to come up with arguments that support notability imho: All that to say that there is an on-going interest in the guy and what he has to say. MasterIAM (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * His book 'Act of Consciousness' (2015) is on Book Authority's list of 100 Best Consciousness Books of All Time
 * Several of his books have been translated into multiple languages, for example, Act of Consciousness into six European ones (links to publishers can be provided). Much of his other written material has been translated into 22 different languages, made accessible through non-US websites (links can be provided)
 * The article itself has had an average of 800 hits/mo over the past 12 months and on average 650 hits/mo over the past five years, which proofs to me that there is an interest in the guy.
 * As mentioned in the article itself Geoffrey Hoppe was part of the Tuning In film documentary (2008)
 * His voice and material was also used in the documentary movie titled Time of the Sixth Sun (2019)
 * And will also be part of the upcoming documentary They Call Us Channelers (tba)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Refs are to self-authored books, LinkedIn, IMDB, Cosmic Lighthouse and other unreliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete His writings do not appear to have attracted significant attention outside the fringe bubble that they naturally inhabit. Endless echoes among people who are not applying any critical evaluation don't add up to a case for notability. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Talking to "beings" on an airplane doesn't warrant an article. How is this even an article on here? Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete A certain number of "hits per month" does not decide notability. Reliable sources do. A YouTube personality can have millions of hits per month and not be considered notable enough for an article. Self published books do not necessarily decide notability, although they help with research after notability is determined. Anyway, unless someone can come up with reliable sources, this article should be deleted JackFromReedsburg (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2020 (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.