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 Speedy closing as keep, without prejudice to relisting. There is little point in having a debate when the article has significantly changed since the last one, and there is no evidence of anyone wishing to make a case for deletion. These procedural relistings are process-wonking time wasting. If anyone is actually wishing to make the case for deletion, they should feel free to relist, or (if that hypothetical person sees this close within a few hours) to re-open this debate. I've no objections to my close being revered if the closer is adding a delete opinion.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Todd mugging hoax[edit]

Ashley Todd mugging hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Previous AFD ended in a speedy renaming. Concerns were raised at DRV that the speedy closure was too early. After reviewing that debate, I have decided to bring this back to AFD since I found the "too early for speedy close" argument persuasive. My way too quick recap of the arguments is that: 1) the argument for deletion remains that the article is basically a news story (WP:NOT#NEWS) over a minor crime which was briefly a media circus, but not of encyclopedic notability while 2) the argument for inclusion is that the attention and sheer volume of coverage this received makes this a notable event of wide interest. Although I am very interested in the US election, I have not formulated any opinion about this particular one, so I'm going neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Somewhat notable incident involving an otherwise non-notable individual, with consequences for the very notable US election campaign. I won't weep if it goes, but I think this event is of a high-enough profile and has wide enough consequences to be kept. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Event of encyclopedic value due to the well-documented attempts to politicize it. VG ☎ 12:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This topic meets our criteria for inclusion, as there has been significant coverage of it published in reliable sources. The article is netural, verified to reliable sources, contains no original research, is written in an encyclopaeidic manner and is of interest to our readers. It satisfies all of Wikipedia policies, contra the ubiquitous and fucking idiotic applications of NOTNEWS and NOTIMPORTANT. Threshold for inclusion: WP:GNG, and nothing else matters. the skomorokh 12:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close I voted delete on the previous debate, but this is a different article. Frankly, procedural relistings are pointless, if someone wants this deleted, then let them nominate it for deletion. This listing is a waste of time.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- any issues brought up in the previous request for deletion were resolved by the rename and subsequent work on the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2008 (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.