Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Haselbauer

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Haselbauer

This is a fix of a mal-formed AfD nom. The original nominator, DaturaS, wrote: "Delete or possibly merge - It has been suggested that there is not enough meat in the article, but I believe that is because this individual is not notable enough for an individual entry." Agent 86 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out I'm Neutral on this article as I have not thought about its inclusion or deletion. Agent 86 23:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original delete nom was by Tonyclifton5, I was trying to fix it by creating the AfD page for discussion. DaturaS 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "not enough meat", this looks like a article that needs to have a {{stub}} tag put on it. Also note this article has had 10 unique contributors. see for yourself! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I believe there could be enough information out there to put together a more complete article on the individual. A quick google search brings up a video from Forbes featuring the guy and a number of books he has published as well. I would suggest those "10 unique contributors" get to work! DrunkenSmurf 02:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [4 books] and numerous mentions - appears notable outside the High IQ society - Peripitus (Talk) 03:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These puzzle books are just not notable. DaturaS 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stub tag. -Quiddity 20:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems there has been considerable negative response to this article that I originally posted, which is why I'm surprised so many of you are voting to keep it. The article is woefully light on material and the only two notable things are that he's the president of the International High IQ Society and an author of puzzle books, both of which are already mentioned on the IHIQS Wiki entry. It's redundant and ripe for deletion IMO. --Tonyclifton5 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup and expand; the Observer piece seems to be well beyond non-triviality but the bibliography should go. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:00, 25 July 2006 (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.