Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Millett

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. Mailer Diablo 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Millett

This not overly intelligent young man was not the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of [him]". As such, I say we electrocute this article to reduce light pollution.- CrazyRussian talk/email 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, even for Darwin Award winners. --Calton | Talk 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this article after being referred from the Brandon Vedas article, and the subject is noteworthy for being one of the first internet deaths by misadventure. He was subject to a fair amount of news coverage at the time due to the internet angle. BoojiBoy 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete in agreement on Calton's Darwin Awards comment. Michael 07:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and Calton's comments. I don't think this incident really stands comparison to Brandon Vedas -- Millett just went out, did something dumb and got himself killed, whereas Vedas pretty much died on screen and became a symbol for the stupid bravado ("i told u i was hardcore") and the cowardly group mentality and evasion of responsibility ("damn this is hard call[.] yall make it[.] good night[.] [exits]") that directly contributed to his death. They pretty much watched him die. That element is what made the Vedas incident famous and an ongoing part of internet lore, and that element is precisely what's missing in the Millett incident. (Obviously, they should've talked him out of it, but they honestly didn't realize that a) he was really going to do it and b) it really was a very dangerous thing to do.) Sure, the two incidents have parallels, but in the end, one of them is a very notable event, the other one isn't. -- Captain Disdain 08:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of people who killed themselves doing stupid things. -- GWO
• Delete as those above. Nuttah68 10:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Captain Disdain. Not really "Internet related", if that makes a difference; else every suicide, criminal, or accident victim who records their plans on MySpace or LiveJournal is encyclopedia material. Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The point was that he was the first such idiot, and was newsworthy at the time. However I will obviously accept the judgement of the community if consensus is reached. BoojiBoy 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:BIO. A chat log is not a Reliable Source. If he was the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works" then please cite those sources. Note, WP:BIO states, "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage." Subject is trivial. Scorpiondollprincess 14:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- KarenAnn 23:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete not-notable, vanity, trolling article. --Werto 13:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep purely because of the insensitivity shown by the nom to a human being who has died. --Tim1988 ^talk 11:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:BIO. Clipped the wires on a light pole??? Such a minor crime likely wouldn't even make the local paper, much less an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 22 July 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.