" 

 ::Again, I'm not saying that this subject isn't inherently interesting, or that it's not notable and should be deleted. I'm saying the way the article is written isn't very interesting. As it is, it can be broken down into ""Woodbridge was born to this family. [Family details] Woodbridge went to these schools, joined these clubs, and earned these degrees. Woodbridge became a pastor. Woodbridge became a professor and taught these subjects. Woodbridge became a dean and then a president. Woodbridge retired. Woodbridge married and raised a family. Woodbridge died and was buried. [One quote on his personality] [A list of works]"" This is fine for an ordinary article, but doesn't have anything else to pull the reader in. I'm pretty sure an ordinary reader would be left wondering why this particular figure is notable. As a basic example, he wrote a lot, but what did he write about? I don't think a list of titles suffices. Essentially, I think for biographical articles, some sense of how the subjects were influential is needed at least.  

 ::I didn't mean to make a personal attack of any kind; if Wikipedia were to get rid of its articles on obscure or dry subjects it wouldn't be the same (or as useful). But if FAs are supposed to be ""the best work"" of Wikipedia... I have a hard time seeing how something this bare-bones can compare with the sort of stuff I mentioned (in terms of writing quality and depth of research).   "