Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Hoffman (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Nja 247 08:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Steve Hoffman
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Steve Hoffman
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I've just stubbed and semi-protected this article per WP:BLP. From what I can make of it he is a controversial figure in the audiophile internet community with no real notability. Over half the references on the article were for the horrible written "Viewpoints on Hoffman's work by his peers" section. The article only made one claim to notability backed with a single source.

He is borderline notable at best, the article is almost completely unverifiable from reliable sources and has been in a BLP tug of war for 4 years. We clearly can't do the article right, delete it. BJ Talk 09:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as a stub if nothing else. As pointed out in the last AfD, we have multiple sources for him.  I've updated the list  here.  BLP problems and editor misbehavior are not reasons for deletion. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. Your statement that he's a “controversial figure in the audiophile internet community with no real notability” doesn't do him justice. He has to be one of the most famous mastering engineers out there. Come to think of it, I can't name any other mastering engineers. He's notable for having mastered the definitive CD versions of a lot of classic albums. There are a lot of independent articles about the man's work on the internet so I'd say the guy is not even borderline, just plain notable. The article in its current state doesn't establish notability well but, given that he's notable, that means that the article should be improved, not deleted.Thebrid (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (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.