Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolf Bickel

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Wolf Bickel
Not notable/unverifiable-- BMIComp (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Verifiable., for instance. Pburka 03:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This shows he has published nothing, and is referred to (maybe) in one book. -Splash 21:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily verifiable, noted astro-physical photographer. But this article is crying out for expansion and elaboration. Any Takers? Hamster Sandwich 04:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs work, but certainly notable. Cnwb 05:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand It seems notable enough Cyclone49 06:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Forig 11:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Pure speedy delete under criterion #1 as it stands. If there is no more than a fact in it by the end of voting, I will pull the trigger.  Right now, this tiny amount of content could be in a more general article (e.g. one on recent asteroids or on one of the asteroids he discovered).  This is not an article.  It's a couple of facts.  He may be verifiable and notable, but "is a country" isn't an article, and neither is "He is an astronomer who discovers asteroids."  Geogre 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as unverifable. I can't read those Google hits, and it's all very well observing asteroids, but anyone can do that. If evidence can be found (and translated in English) that he has discovered something, then that's different. Otherwise, this is a speedy candidate under the "no assertion of notability" clause, which is now official policy (see the examples at Deletion of vanity articles before telling me that "prolific discoverer" is such an assertion). -Splash 21:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete As above --PhilipO 21:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete not much info out there to establish real notability, but I'd change to keep if it was expanded. (I know nothing about this guy) --  Etacar11   23:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: there are many links to him from the lists of asteroids. Uppland 07:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: clearly notable enough for an article. Uppland 09:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, I suppose that discovering a couple of asteroids would make you notable. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: There are a lot of people who have discovered asteroids. Unless there is something particularly significant about his discoveries or his career, I see no reason to keep this. ManoaChild 22:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verified stub.  Almafeta 02:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. See my update of the article; he has discovered not one or two, but dozens of asteroids.--Pharos 08:53, 27 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.