Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116

 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. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 00:53, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116
Are all children with unusually long 43-character names inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic? Why or why not? --GRider\talk 22:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Please see Requests_for_comment/GRider2.


 * I don't know. You tell me. Chris 23:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and list keep listed on WP:UA. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 23:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and write more articles instead of delete existing ones. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 00:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Trivial, but interesting. If it were only a line or two I'd say merge into List of unusual personal names but it's a decent little article. I wish it were better referenced. I believe that the number of children with 43-character-long-names is small enough to suggest notability. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 02:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. As well, this vfd is malformed, as Chriscf already pointed out.  JYolkowski 02:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No vote. Lacrimosus 02:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; nomination is malformed. &#8212;Markaci 2005-03-22 T 03:07 Z
 * I thought I recalled a similar VfD a while ago and a suggestion was made to merge into some sort of page of unusual names. If one exists then merge and redirect there. -R. fiend 04:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I should read all the VfD comments first. Dpbsmith mentioned the article I was thinking of: List of unusual personal names. I still think it could be covered there adequately. -R. fiend 05:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is notable because it's the only known case of anyone trying to name their child like that.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 05:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * keep; this. Yuckfoo 06:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Noteworthy. Mgm|(talk) 09:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with unusual name, per R.Fiend. Radiant_* 09:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Xezbeth  17:27, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep – How many children were originally not named out of protest, and then, under threat of law, were named something like that? Notable, and a great example of an UA. – ClockworkSoul 23:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This shouldn't even be up for discussion!  I'm trying to assume good faith, but it's getting harder to do. - Lucky 6.9 02:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm it's kinda funny when someone nominates an article called "Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116" and someone else questions their good faith. Kappa 21:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh...Kappa, with all due respect, the person who listed this for deletion is up for an RfC for possible abuse of the VfD process as a sort of Socrates or even that Mike Myers character. "Discuss amongst yourselves."  I remember this case.  Weird story and not without its humorous overtones.  You're right that odds are good that no one could even spell this correctly and therefore look this up.  BUT it's in the unusual articles page which makes it highly visible.  No change of vote.  Back to Wikivacationing. - Lucky 6.9 03:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -JCarriker 09:46, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and obscure! What a wonderful combination. --Theo (Talk) 09:47, 26 Mar 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.