Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfrum, Stefan M.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was Delete (userfied), since author of article agrees —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-25 23:02Z

[edit] Wolfrum, Stefan M.

Biography, notable? Article author, User:Stefan.wolfrum, disputes notability concerns. —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 08:57Z

  • I wanna be a research student so that I can have papers published in 8 journals, a patent to my name, and a Wikipedia article, to boot! Meh, delete, fails WP:BIO. 434 ghits. [1] — Kimchi.sg | Talk 10:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable person, fails WP:BIO --TBC??? ??? ??? 10:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  10:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Userfy as Vanity abakharev 13:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • i can understand what you are trying to communicate, however, i used the article on "Popko Peter van der Molen" figuring on Wikipedia as an example, and i am not very sure why this one should exist and mine not. Can you explain the difference in importance? Attention: i do not object your comments on mine a priori, but do wish to understand why there is a difference. I agree with deletion PROVIDED that somebody explains me the difference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan.wolfrum (talk • contribs) user:stefan.wolfrum
  • Delete Non-notable, already has own user page: User:Stefan.wolfrum Stephenb (Talk) 20:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and early close The author has already blanked the page. No need to sit around and wait. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • blanked page as there is apparently a noticability standard (stephenb: it would have been more gentle to give me notice of that standard than just to open a public discussion, that way of acting is more 'scientific'). However, if i used apparently a wrong example, i will notice the discussion on that example. user:stefan.wolfrum


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.