Talk:Mick Philpott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus - strong arguments a year ago to merge MP to AHF have been replaced with recent arguments for the opposite. Widefox; talk 17:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Philpott should be merged to Allenton house fire. He would not have been considered notable enough before the fire, and will remain inexorably connected to it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, for reasons stated by proposer Bevo74 (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He had notability before, featuring on his own documentary and dozens of newspaper articles, and the Jeremy Kyle Show. If it was JUST the fire, then obviously it would belong here, but as it is I would say not. Even prior to the fire his story was known and recognised by millions. It seems a little ridiculous to just describe this as 'fire in Allenton' (where?) when I'm sure more people have heard of Mick Philpott than have heard of Allenton. Suara Gondang (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He featured in a documentary five years ago, and appeared in newspapers at the same time. There are thousands of British people in a similar situation, and some with even greater media exposure that do not have articles, like reality TV show contestants. The article concerns the devastating fire in Allenton rather than having the tragedy the subsection of the alleged perpetrator, because the event is notable in itself. What had Philpott achieved before the fire? He was featured as part of a routine sensationalist tabloid news cycle, that had no lasting repercussions. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bit more than a 'routine news cycle', there was separate coverage in separate periods of 2006 and 2007, as a result of which he was notable enough to be chosen for the Ann Widdecombe documentary. He wouldn't be here if it wasn't the fire, but neither is it a case of just one event. He has attempted murder conviction, lots of news coverage, and now charged for murder in one of the worst house fires ever. Describing this as 'Allenton house fire' is a little bizarre considering how much back story there is, and how all the back story is Mick Philpott. Suara Gondang (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think it's the other way round. He was already notorious, had been the subject of a documentary, numerous newspaper articles, etc. Plus in terms of public perception, this is all about Philpott, Allenton doesn't register on people's radar. Suara Gondang (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't here to make value judgments on Philpott's life. He had many children, he failed to turn up to make barrels, etc. Notorious? There are many British people in a similar situation. The fire is the event. What is Philpott really notable for? Not working and having children? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who is making value judgements? You don't have to invent the lightbulb to be famous. Plenty of people are famous for being famous. Suara Gondang (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this man will continue to receive significant media coverage as certain murderers (convicted as such) have done after their trial, such as Myra Hindley and Peter Sutcliffe among others. Details of the house fire itself will fade, apart from the deaths of six children, and should that article be preferred, will still require a redirect from Mick Philpott anyway. Speculation naturally, but people needing to use a redirect from the incident will be fewer in number than if Philpott is merely a redirect. The Allenton house fire article should be turned into a redirect, and any details not in this article moved here. Philip Cross (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page looks excellent now. Immediately after the fire, we had little knowledge of his past life and deeds, and the revelations of the trial mean that this page can now be correctly sourced. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good to me too. I have merged content from the fire article in here, but my #redirect has been removed there. This seems unfortunate as there is no reason to have two articles now, and there is not really any sense in maintaining two. 81.141.31.196 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - restart if desired - articles have advanced (and events) making this merge proposal stale. Editors are choosing to merge without seeking consensus here first, and is disruptive. I suggest closure of the proposal and (if desired) restarting with clearer straw-poll per WP:MERGE III. Widefox; talk 11:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - The original proposal is old news now and Mick Philpotts article should not be merged neither should the other article on the fire.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Allenton house fire which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mick_Philpott&oldid=1207297536"