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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McSkillet[edit]

McSkillet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Has not received significant coverage outside of one event (his death). Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 16:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing currently there that warrants his own article to memorialize him, sad as the circumstances are. If every YouTuber with 800,000 subs had an article, according to Social Blade there would be about 10,000 of them. Bennycat (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the same as saying that if every town with 10,000 inhabitants had an article, there would be 800,000 of them: they do, and there are. complainer 21:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Known only for his death. Would not have an article otherwise; it is a clear case of recentism. --Folengo (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable now as of the one event rule; when YouTubers and online entertainers inevitably get looked upon as similar to actors in the 20th century; he'll get one anyway, though. GuzzyG (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. 68.132.85.183 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Guilty of murdering two innocent people, he should not be glorified by such an article. Commiting suicide, OK. But like this? Let's get rid of such criminals. I know - he's dead etc etc but self inflicted. 160 km/h on the wrong lane with a sports car - that is suicide. Royalrec (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not. Wikipedia does not tolerate censorship, and articles about criminals are rife. complainer 21:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There was some coverage before the incident [1], but that's not enough. Given that more events are unlikely, WP:BLP1E applies. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL (not saying that the subject should be that, just that the policy doesn't encourage article creation for non-notables upon their death) Nate • (chatter) 04:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He only seems to be notable for one event. Also, this event seems to be a rather generic crime; we cannot have articles on every automobile accident. Interestingly, it would seem that the "McSkillet Burrito" has a higher level of notability than this man. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No real notability. Fixer88 (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and a double murderer. Which may be notable in terms of internet hits and ghoulish public reception, but is so not admirable in the field of human nature. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not judge the subjects of our articles. Nobody is seriously proposing to delete Hitler. complainer 14:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Godwin's law. WWGB (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're comparing some young, dumb nobody to Hitler? Jiminy Christmas. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, the point here shifted from "he isn't notable because he's an asshole" to "he isn't notable because everyone mentions Hitler" to "he isn't notable because he just isn't good as Hitler"? Does anybody have a point that actually relates to Mr. Skillet? complainer 21:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Death does not establish notability, especially in the case of an 18-year-old YT "star" who's now nothing more than a jerk who killed two innocent people. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Himself is not enough notable.If there are enough primary article for Double murder-suicide of The mother and daughter,(I omit their name here)maybe article can be made with their names,but not enough primary source.Angelorphan (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as said before is he guilty for murdering two innocent people - for nothing more in my opinion. --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failure of WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination reason is fallacious. People who actually read [WP:ONEEVENT]] will find the following: "[...] when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. ". There being no article on the event McSkillet was involved in, this policy simply does not apply. Everyone else seems to focus on:

• the fact that McSkillet was not famous before his death. This is NOT a wikipedia policy: plenty of people became notable posthumously. I shall not mention any to avoid the tired "are you comparing a 18-year old jerk with [insert misunderstood artist]?" argument.
• the fact that he was a jerk. Again, NOT a wikipedia policy: Wikipedia has the world's largest collection of jerk articles, spanning from Leopoldo Galtieri, who made it a national policy, to Jeremy Clarkson, who is basically only famous for being one.
• that he was famous for being a youtuber: that was before he died, and he did not have an article then. Now he is famous for being a youtuber and a spree killer.
• various emotional arguments, which don't belong anywhere near wikipedia. complainer 21:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable before his death DrKilleMoff (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really a valid argument. The first ever zombie will definitely deserve an article. complainer 19:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. People die, some more idiotic and malicious than others. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: How long are we going to drag this one out? Not that I care about the reputation of this guy, but I'm generally against these long drawn-out trashings of anyone's life story, no matter who there are/were. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you, this is a snow close by now ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 00:53, 3 September 2018 (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.