Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Brandeker

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 08:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexis_Brandeker

Vanity page. Should be deleted. Sonzai 07:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Doesn't appear to be vanity - article author is not its subject. 154 google hits for "Alexis Brandeker". Borderline notability - no vote as yet. Dbiv 12:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • An article can be vanity even if written by someone else (e.g. if you write about your personal hero, local chess club, or whatever). That said, if this Alexis got a book published, I'm in favor of keeping the article. Radiant_* 15:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Authored by User:Urhixidur, whose real name, judging from the link from his userpage to his homepage, appear to be Thibault. Brandeker's publications are listed here. I guess this is part of some asteroid project. No vote. / Uppland 12:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Published author, probably will become more notable in the future. --Smithfarm
  • Encyclopedias don't feature subjects that might become notable. They feature subjects that are notable. Sonzai 21:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless further evidence is presented. Based on what I can find so far, he does not appear to meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. All academics publish. The correct measure for a scientist is whether his work has been influential on the work of others. Does anyone have access to a citation index? Rossami (talk) 23:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• He's done his PhD, which is good, and he discovered an asteroid, which is way cool. But I still vote delete. DS 15:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 03:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if some one can convince me that discovering an asteroid is a common feat for astonomy types I will vote delete. Dsmdgold 22:20, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • If he discovered a new planet, I'd say the entry should be kept. But he discovered a much smaller piece of floating rock. I don't think that's incredibly notable, do you? Sonzai 22:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Incredibly notable? No. Notable enough to make the cut on Wikipedia? yes. The analogy I would make is discovering a new species. Only a few ilving mammalogists have discovered a new species (and I mean really discovered one, not just argued that an existing species should be split into one or more). Many, if not most, entomologist shave described species. Is finding an astroid a bug or or a mammal? I don't know, and absent any evisence one way or the other, I will err on the side of inclusion. Dsmdgold 00:23, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Finding an individual asteroid is not notable. Thousands of people have done this. Finding the first asteroid was notable. Finding the first ten asteroids was notable. Finding the asteroid belt was notable. Discerning the nature of asteroids was notable. Determining the orbits of asteroids was notable. Finding an individual asteroid is not notable, unless there's something particularly notable about that asteroid. Similarly, discovering an individual comet is not notable unless there's something notable about that comet. DS 21:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.