MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 10/3/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca>
wrote:
>I don't get involved in VfDs often, usually only
>when an article I've got watchlisted gets nominated, but one I'm
>currently arguing is a good counterexample; the article about the guy in
>the US National Guard who changed his name to Optimus Prime. The only
>reason that's been put forward for deleting his article is that he isn't
>notable aside from his unusual name. Well, why can't having an unusual
>name be notable? I certainly consider it notable enough to have had the
>thing watchlisted for over a year now.
>
>
<snip>
It's certainly worth an article a few months back I
came across an
article on a Scandinavian kid who'd been called B (or something
similar by their parents) but the government wouldn't allow it. Their
alternative wasn't much better. The fact unusual names are quite
uncommon makes any such name officially recognized by a country's
government quite notable. What was their argument for it not being
notable?
The debate's over at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Optimus_Prime_…
- I actually brought up the person I think you're referring to,
originally his parents wanted to name him
"Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116" (pronounced "Albin") and
when the Swedish government refused they tried changing the spelling to
"A". That didn't work either. I don't suppose anyone knows what he
eventually wound up being named, by the way?
Anyway, I've tried to explain why I consider Optimus to be a notable
person, but the original VfD nominator doesn't seem to understand that I
(and other "keep" voters on this matter) really truly consider him
notable for non-bonkers reasons - he's suggested we might be voting keep
for non-serious reasons. I suspect there's some sort of fundamental
philosophical difference between us on this matter that will be hard to
find a middle ground on. Unfortunately I don't see this as being as easy
to find a common solutiuons on as an NPOV debate because it's not easy
to both delete _and_ keep an article.
An older Optimus Prime delete debate actually resolved itself as a
"merge", which is sort of like that. It worked for a little while, but I
recreated the article after the merged material got pared down to just a
single sentence in the main article - I considered that to be a bit
extreme. That's why the thing's languished on my watchlist for so long.
I can't believe I'm discussing the case again a year later. :)
**