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. ✗plicit 00:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Hoffmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I am the subject of this article and am requesting a courtesy deletion. The only notable aspect to my career in terms of wide in-depth press coverage is only one event, and no other coverage reveals substantial public interest in my career - the rest are run of the mill sources or passing mentions. There has been a banner at the top of the page for seven years asking for additional citations for verification, and none have come forward that changed its status. I would ask for the community to delete my page, which I had no hand in creating. JHHM (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Arts, Theatre, Germany, England, Costa Rica, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I mean, I wouldn't want something describing a sexual harassment online, guilty or not. Seems to be enough written about the individual as a curator [1], nothing in the Getty ULAN [2] Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Wrote a rather extensive book on the curation process "Curating from Z to A", although I see no book reviews, for it, appears to have had an extensive career with several notable art institutions. As explained above, the sexual harassment items are not something one would want to be kept online, but I see no reason to delete the article otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Book reviews here [3], [4] and was the subject of a magazine article here [5]. The Seawall one is perhaps not as good quality as the other two though. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are also three reviews of Show Time: The 50 Most Influential Exhibitions of Contemporary Art at JSTOR 24242321, [6], and [7], one of Curating from A to Z [8] (to which Z to A is the sequel), one of Life in your head [9], etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Article is generally well written and sourced. Appreciate the nominator being transparent. Boredintheevening (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject's notability is established by his book, with supporting evidence provided by published reviews.Gedaali (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources describe him as a "star curator" and "Hoffmann, one of the must (sic.) prominent freelance curators in the art world...." so WP:GNG is easily met. It's not like a school superintendent in Upstate New York, or a retired child actor who ended up working for his brother's real estate office like a modern Baby Jane, or an assistant professor at X state university concerned about her prospects for tenure if she's seen as a publicly hound, or the state judge arrested for lewd behavior, or a singer who backed up Andrea Boccelli a few times, or even the descendant of the founding father of Chile accused of slavery (yes, all real life examples from New York). In such marginal cases, I'm happy to let them recover their privacy. But this subject has worked for some of the most prestigious cultural institutions in the art capitals of the world, wrote a widely reviewed book, and sought media attention. I'm sorry. If you want to appeal, go to Jimbo Wales. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the subject of the article meets notability criteria for an encyclopedia article per WP:GNG. The sourcing in some of the sub-sections on his curatorial career accomplishments can be improved (and the maintenance tag at the top removed afterwards), but that is not a reason for deletion. The rest of the article appears to be properly sourced. AfD is not clean up. Netherzone (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I believe that NAUTHOR is met here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:22, 26 March 2025 (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.