Talk:George I. Mott
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
[edit] Proposal for merger to Spontaneous human combustion
Mott is non-notable except that his death is cited by those who argue that Spontaneous human combustion is possible. So the article on Mott sd be merged into that article. Pan Dan 20:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Once you do that, the other minibiographies will have to be merged, too. Then the article will be too long (for the third time), and the process of shortening it will inevitably remove details that are important to give a reader an understanding of why there is an SHC debate at all. IM(NV)HO the idea that Mott is non-notable except for being an alleged SHC victim is a bit of an oxymoron! (For context and comparison, see List of unusual deaths). Garrick92 10:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The bios of the other alleged victims of SHC are much longer--see Spontaneous human combustion#Some alleged SHC fatalities and click on the links. Unless George I. Mott is expanded, it doesn't need its own article. Pan Dan 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
People don't just combust like this every day, he would have attracted enough news to be counted 'notable'.
I agree with Garrick. SaderBiscut 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that it should not be merged. Having been one of a very small number of deaths possibly caused by SHC inherently makes him notable. Timmy989 20:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
