Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 (3rd nomination)


 * Note: This article was subsequently userfied and rewritten in order to broaden it's scope. It was then moved into mainspace to the article Naming law in Sweden. — V = I * R (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 13:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 was   delete. by clear consensus. BLP1E is not so important a consideration as ONEEVENT and NOTNEWS. Yes, it has had press mention, but the point of NOTNEWS is that "not all newsworthy events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

surely WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS applies here. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless trivia. There is a mention of the name on Given name - the mention there is justifiable but could use some more context. Beyond that it does not warrant its own page. Keep. While I agree with what I say, there was a clear consensus for keep in the earlier nomination. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but I laughed out loud when I read this: "While I agree with what I say[...]" -- I should hope you do! JBsupreme (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly do agree with what I say - hence my revert back to 'delete' in light of the clear consensus that has emerged below! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I applaud you for standing behind your beliefs and principles. It is not always an easy thing to do.  JBsupreme (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, I do not think this article is notable enough to stand on its own. Given name seems the most appropriate place for this.  ArcAngel (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLP1E certainly applies here. If that wasn't enough, I'm pretty sure the event of her naming wouldn't pass WP:EVENT. The Wordsmith Communicate 07:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. The mention in Given name is in desperate need of context and if this can't stand on its own, it can definitely be included in an article about naming laws. WP:BLP1E says we shouldn't have articles about certain people to avoid undue weight, but it doesn't preclude mentioning them completely. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Certainly not pointless trivia, this article needs a bit of wikilove that's all. Please do not delete.Tris2000 (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your !vote does not address the proposed reason for deletion at all. Nobody asserted that it was pointless trivia. Its also not Original Research, Coatracking, or a Chesterfield sofa. That doesn't change what it is, which is a BLP1E issue. The Wordsmith Communicate 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, sorry if I wasn't clear but the reason why I said that it wasn't pointless trivia was because I was referring to something said earlier by Mkativerata, which she has since put a line through. But to tackle the proposed reasons, WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, I have to disagree and I will explain. First of all, with regards WP:NOTNEWS, it has been covered in major World media, from the Telegraph and the Independent in the UK (quality broadsheet media), to the Daily Mirror, to the BBC, to Pravda in Russia, to papers in Poland and the States (Chicago Sun-Times to name one). And of course it has been mentioned many times in Scandinavian newspapers. It has been mentioned over 12 years in the press. See these Google News links if you don't believe me. So, I say this is certainly NEWS. Now for ONEEVENT, well yes the fact that he was named once or was born once or whatever it is you are saying, of course, but because this happened in 1996, the story is being repeated again and again in future. Recently a Swedish couple tried to name their son "Q", "Metallica", "Ikea Lego", etc etc and each time Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 has been brought up in the media (because Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 was one of the first). So he set a precedent in some way. You could say that any of the hundreds of court cases listed on Wikipedia eg List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases are also ONEEVENT which they are, but if they are used and quoted subsequently when similar cases come to court or to the public eye, then it is much more notable and deserves an article of its own. So I vote, strongly, for keep. --Tris2000 (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete With all due respect to "Brfxxy", there's nothing here that can't be mentioned in List of unusual personal names. I can't see a merge, since this is one of the most unlikely search terms imaginable.  If someone wants to make an article about laws in Sweden about registration and approval of names, that would certainly be welcome.  The article exists only because someone can't figure out where else to put this information.  Mandsford (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any significant analysis of this unusual name. Most everything on Google appears to be commentary on our article, which isn't independent coverage. Coverage on Google News is just that, news. The prior AfD was in 2006 and contained poor arguments all around.  A redirect to List of unusual personal names might be fitting, even though that list has problems of its own.  Them  From  Space  21:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Covers the intended name, not the person. BLP1E doesn't apply.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  21:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to all articles that have substantial biographical information about living individuals. This article is substantially about the boy and his parents, so the entire BLP policy, including BLP1E, applies. The Wordsmith Communicate 21:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:ONEEVENT most certainly does apply.  I think this was kept in the past because Wikipedia editors thought it was "cute" and liked to see it grace the pages of WP:UA.  Thankfully our policies are beginning to catch up to common sense so we can finally get rid of cruft such as this.  JBsupreme (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's presence on WP:UA itself gave it more notability, as it is mentioned in this context in USA TODAY here! See my comments above why I vote for this to be kept. Tris2000 (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Listing it on Wikipedia's list of unusual articles does not make it more notable. If anything, we can move it to WP:DAFT. The Wordsmith Communicate 14:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but do see my long comment above and my reasons for keeping. This really should not be deleted, IMO. --Tris2000 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Mandsford says it all for me.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If true, I think this article should be kept, especially for those in research. What some deem as trivia could be helpful in studies elsewhere. Case studies are especially significant for inductive research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsrocks (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per BLP1E. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - First, to answer the BLP1E reason directly, this article simply fails to qualify for said criteria. The article is clearly about the name itself, which necessarily deals with the people involved in the naming of the child. The fact that this involves people does not in and of itself make the article a biography though. Biographies maintain their primary focus on the person involved, whereas this is about a name and the events surrounding the creation of it. Anyway, I think that it's instructive to look at what links here for the article, as well. The content, the links provided in the article, and what other articles link to it, clearly suggest that there is a larger, non-biographical topic here. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.