Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimus Prime (person)

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 05:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Optimus Prime (person)

Not notable except for naming himself after Optimus Prime, the fictional robot. I don't understand how this survived an October 2004 vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Optimus Prime (person).--Pharos 23:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Perhaps because a lot of people don't consider "notability" to be a major factor in whether something's worthy of having an article about it in an encyclopedia, or disagree with your assessment of this person's notability? There are articles on Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 and Jennifer 8. Lee solely on account of their unusual names, for example, so this article isn't some aberration. I personally happen to think it's noteworthy that someone named Optimus Prime fought in Iraq. Bryan 23:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Jennifer 8. Lee writes for the New York Times. The naming of Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 was at least a protest against Swedish naming laws. Someone like Adolf Lu Hitler Marak is a notable Indiian politician. That Optimus Prime (the person) fought in Iraq doesn't I think make him any more notable than hundreds of thousands of others who have.--Pharos 23:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but the fact that he's named Optimus Prime makes him more notable than hundreds of thousands of others who have. Why can't someone be notable because of their name? You've already granted Brf...116 a pass in that regard, and Jennifer 8. Lee's notability as a Times writer doesn't appear to be the reason why the article was written either considering how much of it's focused solely on her name - there's as much about her job in her article as there is about Prime's job in his article. I don't see why the fact that the name was self-chosen in Prime's case would make a difference. Bryan 07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I could easily go down to the local courthouse tomorrow and legally change my name to Godzilla. Then, presumably, would I merit an article carefully disambiguated at Godzilla (person)?--Pharos 19:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Sure, why not? Seriously, I don't see why not. You'd have done something fairly interesting. Bryan 19:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Pharos's previous comment. -Nameneko 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep as per Bryan Roodog2k (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An unusual name is not an encyclopedic claim to notability, and this article is wholly unexpandable. If this person name has been a new story outside of his hometown, a sentence about him might be appropriate for Optimus Prime. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There are already a couple of sentences at the bottom of Optimus Prime.--Pharos 19:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Please delete this time. This reminds me of the saying about changing your name to "TV Listings" to get in the paper...--MacRusgail 13:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per A Man In Black. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as an unusual article about a borderline notable subject. [edit] 20:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Optimus Prime. Interesting, but hardly merits a separate article. Ilmari Karonen 21:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep does no harm at all. Dmn € Դմն 23:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Bryan as well as its initial VfD survival. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep just like last time and please do not merge it that would not make any sense Yuckfoo 14:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm really strained to consider all of these keep votes as serious. Should I really advise the writer of the next vanity article that comes up here to just adopt an unusual name, as this simple measure will guarantee their notability?--Pharos 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • At the very least, assume good faith. My vote is based mostly around the fact that it's already survived the VfD process, but I do believe he's notable enough to warrant an article and would have voted keep then, too. --Badlydrawnjeff 15:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm trying to assume full good faith, but I just don't see any reasonable basis being given as to why he is notable. Surely you realize there are probably thousands of people with names just as unusual as "Optimus Prime"; Mr. Prime just happens to be one of a few who've received mention in their local newspaper.--Pharos 15:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm sure there is a pretty large number of people who change their names to something a bit bizarre. If they recieve media attention and/or do something a little out of the ordinary (this guy, for instance, was deployed in Iraq and his military ID also reflects his new name, which is fascinating), I'll vote to keep them every time. If I have a kid and decide to name him Captain Underpants, he's not going to be notable until there's a reason to notice him, such as a newspaper article or something he does. I don't know if there is a standard in place for bizarre names, but given the nature of WP, I have no problem with using that threshold personally. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if someone does something just to become notable, that doesn't prevent them from becoming notable for doing it. This person has found a unique way to become more interesting and notable than the average National Guardsman. "Optimus Prime comes home from Iraq." I love it. This article is surely a quirky, but real improvement to Wikipedia. Unfocused 17:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as this is an article about a member of the National Guard with a notably unusual and bizarre namewho has received ample press coverage, and is duly noted at Wikipedia:Unusual_articles#Language_and_names. Hall Monitor 18:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Optimus Prime. "Optimus Prime" (toy) is notable, and the fact that someone chose to name himself after it is an interesting fact about the toy. The person is not notable at all. --Austrian 18:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It actually got merged into that article for a while after the first VfD. However, the merged material didn't fit very well and wound up pared down to the snippet that's currently in the "see also" section so the person-stuff was split off into its own article again. I suspect the same would happen now, the Optimus Prime article is even bigger than it was back then. Besides, how would the merged article be categorized? Bryan 23:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a standalone article. How many other people named after Transformers can one find in any country's military? This article is one of the many cool things I've learned about since reading Wikipedia:Unusual articles a while back. --Idont Havaname 00:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• comment IMHO, the fact that the guy changed his name to Optimus Prime DOES make the guy notable enough for inclusion. Its cheesy notability. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 09:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: quickly checking WP:NOT, this article might conceivably come under the category of "genealogical entry, or phonebook entry": One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Well, he's managed that. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:08, 4 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.