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 and Redirect to Fatal hilarity. Cbrown1023 talk 00:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mitchell[edit]

Alex Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable person. His death might be but it is mentioned enough in the article Fatal hilarity. In addition the whole entry seems to be a copy paste with a few minor alterations to the reference given. A copyright violation by any other name smells just as ... oh never mind.Peter Rehse 05:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sure about the copy-vio, but WP:NN requires multiple references. I think this is unlikely. --Selket ^Talk 06:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List of unusual deaths already has all the information.--JUDE ^talk 09:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect It's adequately covered in the other article, and there is little potential for expansion here. "Alex Mitchell" is a plausible search term. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a search term it would yield 70,000+ ghits - of those the vast majority are someone else. This is better as a straight-up delete.Peter Rehse 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I prod'd this article earlier for being questionable without reference. The notability of a person who died in a truly unique way is hard to disregard. It is true that the article could certainly do with some expansion, particularly about the person in question. Unless there is a copyright violation(copying without permission) using the phrase "copyvio" does not justify a deletion. I can see no decent reason to remove this content from wikipedia. i kan reed 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Check the citations at the bottom of the Snopes page, his death has been the subject of multiple non-trivial printed sources. In my opinion, anyone who has done anything notable, is notable in his or her own right. 96T 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dying does not make one notable, no matter how it occurred. --Mus Musculus 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. The subject of the article probably meets WP:BIO per the two references in the "Sources" section of the Snopes page. To me, the issue seems to be one of appropriate organisation of content. I am inclined to think that this is adequately covered in fatal hilarity, but believe a redirect would still be appropriate as his death was the first recorded death by laughter. -- Black Falcon 05:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In modern times.Peter Rehse 05:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I failed to notice that. ... I still think redirecting is the appropriate action. Again, for me the issue is content organisation and I find this article to be completely unnecessary given the existence of the equal-length snippet in fatal hilarity. Still, I feel a redirect should exist as a plausible search term. Anyone who wants to create an article on another "Alex Mitchell" would still be able to do so. -- Black Falcon 06:06, 17 March 2007 (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.