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 Keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116[edit]

Delete VfD 1 1/2 years ago ended "keep" because the user who nominated it was up for RfC, and nominated the article poorly and apparently to make a WP:POINT. The kid was not acutally named that. They intended to and the court would not let them. This is manufactured notability. WP:NOT for things invented in school the crack-addled brain one day! Please, for the love of Wikipedia, get this thing out of here.- CrazyRussian talk/email 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • What my nom boils down to is, we ought not reward these people with NOTABILITY for their arbitrary actions. Any one of us could have done that - if this is kept, there are no barriers to notability. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We also don't reward criminals for their actions, but they still get an article, because they get press attention and people want to know about them. The same goes here. The sheer ridiculousness of the name draws interest from people. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not notable enough to need an entire article by itself; merge content into an article with a title like "laws relating to naming of children", and then delete. -- Karada 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Karada, to validly merge any content the history needs to be kept too. Either you have to get an admin to do a history merge or retain a redirect. Deleting a history after merging its content is not correct procedure. See Wikipedia:Merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm afraid I have to vote delete here. While I think this passes the notability test, unfortunately it fails to pass the verifiability test. I got 150 links into the Google results without finding a result that wasn't foreign language, a forum posting or a Wikipedia clone. I found the original reference. Change to no vote. DJ Clayworth 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. There's a _little_ bit in the article that goes beyond other odd names listed on the List of unusual personal names page, and some sources are cited. Tevildo 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only articles that link to this nontrivially are List of personal names that contain numbers and List of unusual personal names, both simply lists. First of all, this means that the article doesn't really contribute to the rest of the encyclopedia. Second, the other articles linked from those lists all seem to have some substantial claim to notability as people, whereas this one is just an anecdote. Finally, the verification worries me too; the sources are weak, and they've clearly been squeezed for every last drop of information. If you have to work that hard, how notable is your subject, really? Melchoir 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting, verifiable article on an unusual subject. That doesn't make it unencyclopedic. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - manufactured notability or otherwise, it's still a notable subject which deserves an article. Also, policies, guidelines, etc. (such as WP:NFT) are not meant to be bent in such a way as to support a nomination for deletion. Timrem 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... That was verbal flair. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I couldn't think of any better way to say what I wanted. I prefer a more conservative interpretation of the rules, guidelines, etc., while the nomination seems to use them in a more liberal manner. Timrem 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per Timrem, notability is notability. Notability by any other name would be as notable. Etc. However, it would be nice to find a link to the original Reuters article to establish stronger verifiability. --Alex S 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Weak Fringing Keep First and foremost, this is a spoken article (that didn't effect my opinion), which is pretty wacky. Though this techinically slips through WP:BIO with one lone newssource from the poorman's New York Times, I think there is a case of notability due to the name challenge and the fact that it exists. I consider the 200 odd g-hits[1] amazing considering the spelling. Though, odd this should meet WP:BIO since it is so unique a name, and according to WP:BIO, notability exists with "Name recognition." And this certainly is a unique and somewhat recognizable name. Yanksox ^(talk) 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alex S and Yanksox. Although this does not affect my vote, I do have to state that I greatly enjoy this case (and the competently-written article describing it). -- Kicking222 21:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I still remember hearing about this when it happened, it was memorable, and in my opinion, notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To what? Yanksox ^(talk) 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Delete This may swing a few opinions as it did with me, but has anyone looked here? It's listed twice, and nothing in the article is really necessary with this information alreadly there. Yanksox ^(talk) 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean listed twice? I see that name only once on the list. There's no rules against linking to a full article for a list entry, in fact, it's the entire point of lists: creating a logical compilation of articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'A' name is listed there twice, I think if both of those names belong to one person they should stay on the same person. I have to disagree, about the list, if some names can't have notability expanded outside of the fact of having the name, there really shouldn't be an article. Maybe redirect to that list. Yanksox ^(talk) 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But they can. The fact it was worldwide news and sprung a court case can and is also noted in the article, it's not just having a name. But to avoid excessive long lists, such information should be in its own article rather than jammed into a list. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You can say what you want about the parents, but the court case an legal crap surrounding this is notable as it made the news worldwide. The list only gives the bare bones, the article goes into more detail and explains more of the background. Anything that has more than a basic definition should have an article and not be bloating a list entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Manufactured notability maybe, but it succeeded - being in worldwide news = notable. (And it was, I remember it at the time.) (Guess that must have been another insane name battle, I don't think I was reading the news at my age in 1991. Even so, it still was covered.) I also doubt the parents really view this page's existance as a trophy of any sort. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to see this article merged into an article about the law in question. It could include what if any controversy surrounded the law's introduction, public reaction, events that led to the case, and fallout (if any) after this case. That would be a good read; if there's insufficient information available, perhaps an article about legal controversies or challenges to laws in Sweden? I'm not familiar enough with the country to recommend a specific place to put it. The information is encyclopedic, it's just a topic that probably won't grow beyond a few paragraphs on its own. Moulder 22:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Should we expunge all criminals from wikipedia because they manufactured their own notability? This is what wikipedia is most often used for. 69.140.29.103 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please it is still notable see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 also previous discussion Yuckfoo 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I do not understand why people think "manufactured notability" is not worthy of inclusion - what notability isn't manufactured? Do we only have articles on people and events who are completely at the whim of the elements? By this reasoning, any number of people ranging from Adolf Hitler to William Hung could be deleted. This caused a notable and curious controversy, so of course it belongs here. Jammo (SM247) 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to an article about the law, fix links, and delete the redirect as an implausible typo. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as long as we don't create 500 redirects to it. ~ trialsanderrors 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, it's real, so it deserves an article, and it's of decent size too.--AeomMai 00:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A lot of electrons are spilled at AfDs about whether or not a topic is real or notable or important. While one would think they were based on their use, there is no policy regarding notability or importance, just guidelines and suggestions. The real question ought to be: "is it encyclopedic?" Does this article provide understanding of the topic at hand so as to its meaning and how it relates to the broader field of knowledge of which it forms part? In pondering this, I read the entry for encyclopedia. I know that's not a policy either, but it certainly provides some guidance. Looking at WP:5P and WP:NOT, I have to conclude that this article is not encyclopedic. It is indiscriminate and trivial. At most, it can be merged into one of the articles suggested above. Agent 86 00:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Very well said, Agent 86, this really gives me something to think about for the next time I submit an article for AfD. ---Charles 06:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks - It has certainly made me realize that I now have something to think about for the future! In fact, I may make it my personal mantra (not set in stone, of course) before nominating/commenting/etc. on a proposed deletion. Agent 86 17:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move/merge and delete redirect... unless there's a shorthand name for it? Think about it this way, folks: assuming someone knew about the topic, how would they find it in the first place? --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 04:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always access it by means of Albin. Other articles also link to it, and others who don't know about it may find it by hitting the random article button. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Melchoir and Agent 86. —Centrx→talk 05:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Yanksox and Agent 86. ---Charles 06:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, there's no rule saying every article has to be dry and boring. Stev0 06:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. People "manufacture" notability all the time, some by hook, some by crook. I could "manufacture" my notability by writing a bestseller fantasy trilogy or some other stuff like that. (One day. One day. =) That said, I fail to see the worth of the subject of the article aside of perfectly good material for WP:UA. Even if I'd support unusual "unusual" encyclopedic topics, I'm not sure if this is famous enough of a case. And the title, very heart-wrenchingly because that's the point, is not something people would look for. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. This could later be merged with an article on the Swedish law on personal names, but until that merge target exists, we may as well keep this around (it can't be merged if it is deleted). up+land 10:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously still notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, contains notability, even if the child was never name as such. Jgamekeeper 23:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above WP 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. A blip on the news. Maybe people manufacture notability all the time, but I see no reason to pander to it. Tychocat 08:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems reasonably notable, also per Uppland. ais523 11:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons already given and because of the reference to 'pataphysics. --rattUs ratTus 19:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First contrib. [2] - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course. I even remember reading this in the paper. Sarge Baldy 22:30, 24 June 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.