Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Beckham

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 redirected to his daddy. DS 17:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brooklyn Beckham

{{{text}}} Rklawton 03:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC) as per CalJWRklawton 06:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete Already mentioned on father's page. JoshuaZ 03:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Abstaining for now per CalJW. JoshuaZ 05:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable an sich. Bobby1011 03:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 05:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, he can be covered in his dad's page, but he is astonishingly famous in the UK for a non-Royal seven year old. There are thousands of articles about British people who don't have a fraction of his profile. Just look at his impact on google. There is even a book about him. CalJW 05:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nn bio. No Guru 06:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What use is fame if there is nothing encyclopedic to say about him? Henning Makholm 07:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to David Beckham, as it was originally, and as per Cruz Beckham and Romeo Beckham. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruz Beckham.) — sjorford (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per sjorford. feydey 13:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Brooklyn Beckham is probably one of the most famous children in the world. Even though there's not much encyclopedic to say about him he is indeed a person who's notable enough to have his own article on Wikipedia. Tryggvia 13:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, if he is notable but there is not much to say on him, then the material can be put in his father's article. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 13:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to David Beckham. That Beckham and that Spice Chick have a child is known throughout the world, but the only thing the child himself has done is get born. There isn't even anything to merge in this article. JIP | Talk 13:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Tryggvia. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect until the page has enough content to stand on its own. At any rate, since this was once a redirect, this should be a matter for the talk page, not AFD. Turnstep 15:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to father. He is far too young to have done anything to warrant an article; his notability is entirely in the context of his parents. —Whouk (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect -> Delete. Unless he has produced an internationally acclaimed work of art in colouring-in class? Deizio 18:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - Hmmm, I would have said delete, though. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete no assertion of notability. Lineage does NOT, I repeat, NOT, per se establish notability. If he's in line to inherit the Japanese Throne, then yes, but otherwise, without independent significance this must be deleted. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete kidcruft. Person of no accomplishment. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per the.crazy.russian --Khoikhoi 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mama or Papa. Not a notable person in their own right MLA 11:13, 20 March 2006 (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.