Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimus Prime (person) (4th nomination)

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. Please see AfD talk page for rationale. A Train^talk 20:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Optimus Prime (person)

Optimus Prime (person) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This person obviously does not meet the notability guidelines. His only "notable" act was changing his name to that of a popular toy. Even this was not picked up by any media except for one local TV station, which still falls under WP:NOT#NEWS.
As for the last nomination: The one who decided that there was no consensus obviously forgot that the AfD process is not a popularity vote. I also suggest this essay: Wikipedia:Recentism.Svetovid 20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Changed his name, served on the National Guard, and ... what? If reliable sources can be found for more notability, then I may re-evaluate. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot fathom why this is even a debate... delete with impunity. -- FamedDeletionist 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as this is quite notable. I am also in support of merging into Optimus Prime. -- Fire 23:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also support a merge, but this was disregarded previously because this was originally forked out of that article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you prove that this is notable? Otherwise, your vote is pointless.--Svetovid 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is notable because the Transformer line had such an impact on people that hey have changed their names to such characters(another example: changed name to Megatron http://www.flickr.com/photos/punkjr/698895174/). I would think this is much more then getting a tattoo on your body of a character because a name is even more personal. This is definitely a major thing to point out when discussing the popularity of the Transformers all over the world. 71.166.4.205 01:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • But how does that make THIS INDIVIDUAL notable? Sorry, I don't see it. You can change your name to anything but it doesn't make you notable. --Charlene 04:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Apparently Optimus Prime has called out Megatron for a duel now: [1]. If it actually proceeds this might boost the coverage of this sort of thing. Bryan Derksen 18:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would agree a merge is appropriate. I think it is worth briefly noting in the Optimus Prime article that at least one person has legally changed their name to Optimus Prime. It's definitely not worth of it's own article. DraxusD 08:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • • no, a merge is not a justified response either. this man changed his name to a fictional cartoon character with an odd name. This fact does nothing to add to the character this guy named himself after, and it does nothing to the past present or future status of the character or the person on the simple basis of him being named after the character. A merge would be appropriate if this guy became president or did some other such notable action. Then, a subsection in the OP article mentioning why he changed his name might be appropriate. As it stands, he is not notable... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.205.253.125 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 July 2007.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Transwiki to wikinews, but even there this would be borderline. Recurring dreams 02:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is not the same as transient news interest. Fails WP:BIO. --Charlene 04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy, and this individual was barely newsworthy. Resolute 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Deelete -- per above. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge A page could be created listing people who have changed their names to Transformers names. Recently another gentleman changed his middle name to "Megatron". I think it's at least as notable as children named ESPN, which received a mention on that page. --DaiTengu 07:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge As I stated in reply to ElementFire —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DraxusD (talk • contribs) 08:23, 5 July 2007.

• Keep This kind of article (on a minor, yet fascinating subject for which a traditional encyclopedia wouldn't have room) is one of the chief joys of Wikipedia. At the very least merge it into the main Optimus Prime article. Ladislav the Posthumous 11:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that other encyclopaedias wouldn't have an article about this subject is not a notability feature at all.--Svetovid 12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• A traditional encyclopaedia wouldn't have an article about Optimus Prime the toy or Optimus Prime the fictional character, either. I think this guy is both notable (as an example of a person with an unusual personal name and someone who chose that name for himself), and fascinating. Moreover, the existence of this kind of article is one of the reasons I love Wikipedia so much: and yet every time I see something like this, something that makes me think "Wow, what a wonderful thing is Wikipedia, that sees the fall of every sparrow, and records it if it's in the slightest bit interesting. How blessed I am to live in an age with an Internet!", some killjoy has slapped a "Nominated for speedy deletion" banner across it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ladislav the Posthumous (talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 July 2007.

• "A traditional encyclopaedia wouldn't have an article about Optimus Prime the toy or Optimus Prime the fictional character, either." Maybe they would. maybe they wouldn't. The point is that this is not used as an argument for their inclusion here.
  If it's an example of an unusual personal name, than maybe it's worth mentioning there as an example.
  You also confuse Wikipedia with news sources and blogs.
  Also read WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOT.--Svetovid 13:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:ILIKEIT doesn't apply: I have no particular opinion on Optimus Prime the individual, I like the article. Or, more precisely, its existence. I suspect you meant WP:INTERESTING. Anyway, I seem doomed to lose this argument, I just felt I had to take a stand. Ladislav the Posthumous 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Absolutely non-notable individual. At best it is worthy of a one-liner in the main Optimus Prime article. Tarc 13:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, sadly. I really enjoy this story, but there's really no notability here. It's a quirky thing that got him 15 minutes of fame, but that's just not sufficient to keep it. -Chunky Rice 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's been through AfD/VfD once a year now like clockwork, I don't see that anything significant has changed. Bryan Derksen 06:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• You are right - notability has not been established despite that.--Svetovid 09:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And you are drastically misinterpreting my position. The "keep" at the beginning of the line should have clued you in on that. Bryan Derksen 15:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -umm, yeah no question... this is silly to even be mentioned. Having the name of a fictional character is not notability in it's own right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.205.253.125 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 July 2007.
• Delete with a slight merge to Optimus Prime. I can't possibly fathom why this person should have a biography on Wikipedia. He changed his name as a publicity stunt... and, what, we're going to make that publicity stunt into a biography? Ridiculous. FCYTravis 16:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep So what it's a publicity stunt? So's Paris Hilton and the press have adopted her. I heard that that the photographer who took that famous picture of the naked Vietnamese girl running from napalmed jungle also took the now-famous one of Paris crying in the backseat of the police car. Publicity works and it's part of life. I bet we have an article on that idiot woman who had all that plastic surgery to look like a Barbie Doll, an article about that woman who died of water intoxication at the Wee contest (another publicity stunt). First stop your culture and press from reporting on publicity stunts, then you can work on getting them out of Wikipedia. There is no reason for deletion, "it's a publicity stunt." So, let's stick with real reasons for deletion, not just personal offense at how low human beings can go. KP Botany 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A publicity stunt "is a planned event designed to attract the public's attention to the promoters or their causes"; there are no reliable sources evidencing that Mr. Prime did this for anybody except himself. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, it's a secret then. KP Botany 19:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Changed to strong keep, since the basic argument for deletion was that it was picked up by only one source is false--I found another one. KP Botany 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

the other one --at least judging by the article at the moment -- seems to be a blog. DGG (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's Gillepsie's blog, but he's the editor. KP Botany 22:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikinews; of transient interest, but worthwhile information backed by sources that should not be deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 19:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do you even know what Wikinews is? Wikinews is for news. This is from 2003. He is not currently newsworthy by any stretch. -- Zanimum 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; When something has been through the process 3 times, using "obviously" twice in the nomination is obviously bullshit. Eclecticology 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  Obviously if prior discussions closed as "no consensus", then is is obviously clear that this issue is unsettled and is a perfectly valid candidate to renominate. Equally obvious is the fact that you are unfamiliar with WP:NOTAGAIN. So, obviously, you should read it. Tarc 01:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  Valid to renominate, perhaps, but not valid to describe as "obviously worthy of deletion." The non-obviousness was established by the fact that previous discussions didn't reach a consensus on it. If it really had been obvious there would have been no contest. Bryan Derksen 06:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Discussing the article, not the process, this is about an individual soldier who chose to name himself after a fictional character. There is no general interest or importance, nor will there ever be., The proper place--if any--for this material is as a one sentence mention on the page for the character. I note it has only one source--did no other news program or publication think it worth mentioning? DGG (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia has no size limit, this person is as noteworthy or moreso than scores of others with articles. HalifaxRage 19:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Howso? I don't find that he meets WP:BIO; and your argument seems to fall under WP:OTHERSTUFF. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• One-line mention at Optimus Prime/Optimus Prime (disambiguation) and Delete. Trivial media coverage, not notable enough. 202.54.176.51 08:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable enough for own entry. Also: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." (BLP) - delete. Just have a one sentence mention at Optimus Prime/Optimus Prime (disambiguation) (as anon points out above). --mav 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The only claim to notablity seems to be his name change, which IMO, is not enough. --rogerd 15:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The sources do not establish notability for this individual.--Pharos 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge as it seems to meet notability guidelines, but maybe add additional sources and an image to improve the article's presentation. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:40, 10 July 2007 (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.