Deletion of Ronald K. Hoeflin

Comment: per Angus McLellan -- Wikipedia:Walled garden|walled garden filled with 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:VAIN)

Comment: the sites mentioned appear to fall far short of 's "significant press coverage" criterion. "I've heard of X" is not a reason to keep X; I've heard of no end of unencyclopedic things and so has every other editor. Only a few editors think that's grounds for automatic inclusion, but policy does not agree. It's been said above that the subject appears in "Marquis's ''Who's Who''". If that's true, and if the work is a reliable source, the article can readily be edited to meet . (Although I have to say that the "http://www.marquiswhoswho.com/biographees/default.asp submit your own entry" option on the website does make me wonder
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: After reading this lengthly debate and checking out the article it seems to me that this "high IQ guy" must warrent an article. Not because he is a high IQ guy but merely because this stub is quite good even though it is weak on the  side of things. Certianly this is not a vanity page but it is a weak article overall considering its lack of sources and is in dire need of them. Should this article not gather proper citations later i think it should be reconsidered
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VER)

Comment: many claims but all unsourced, fails our key test of |verifiability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)