Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfe+585, Senior (2nd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 23:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfe+585, Senior

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable person only known for his amusingly long name which seems a tad WP:BLP1E. Others have similar long names but that doesn't merit an article. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The old arguments from the first nom to merge aren't applicable any more because the article to merge to was deleted. The nom is correct, this doesn't merit an article. Vacation^nine 13:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more than enough reliable references for notability (some are less reliable, but AP, other newspapers, Guinness Book of Records, Names: A Journal of Onomastics, and maybe 1 or more of the cited books are WP:RS). He's attracted a lot of media interest over a long life. If there was a merge target I wouldn't be opposed, but I can't see one. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies because even if you want to argue that he's not notable, his naming is a notable event (it has received press and book coverage over decades) and therefore you'd have to rename the article to The Event of the Naming of Wolfe+585, Senior. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, starting with all of Colapeninsula's excellent points. Article still needs fixits that I haven't gotten around to, but if an "event" it still has a longstanding ongoing notability unlike other long-name folks (Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 is now a redirect). Longtime recordholders are usually notable. Also there are two different notable naming events found in the RS (even though we don't yet know how they interact). I supplied most of those RS originally after the article was recreated from scratch, so the delete arguments in the (two) prior AFDs don't apply because they referred to completely different (now hidden) articles. (Off-topic, the reason GWR dropped him is that a longer, nonnotable, newborn name was found, but they dropped the category soon after that because the ease of newborn name-law flouts had greatly increased since Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff's day.) Please inquire about any additional issues. JJB 16:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Policy stops us from hosting publicity pieces for people famous for one insignificant quirk doktorb _words^deeds 12:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to report that Google Books lists enough new material for both an expansion and an "In popular culture" section. JJB 16:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Extensive coverage over a period of many years. No reason this information shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and as far as I can see, having the article at his name makes more sense than any potential target.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes people are famous for silly reasons. This fellow had plenty enough continuing coverage such as to hurdle WP:BIO1E, and the article's about as well-sourced as we could ask for (with more on the way, apparently!). Chubbles (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.