Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ashley

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 00:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Ashley

Not-notable. 24 at 19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep By what standard "not notable"? The controversial death of this man led to the resignation of the Chief Constable of Sussex. Jooler 22:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• "Not notable" is pure opinion and not a reason to delete. This user has a history of bogus VFDs, see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Perverted-Justice.com. Mirror Vax 23:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  Of course it's a reason to delete. My cat isn't notable; should I be allowed to make an article about it? James Ashley is just media-hype and not a notable person... and "bogus" means "counterfeit or fake" which my VFD clearly is not (oh my god, you disagree with my assertion that it should be deleted! I guess that makes it "bogus") . 24 at 02:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  Bogus = Plainly erroneous and almost certainly done with malice. 20 people voted, 100% of them for keep. Mirror Vax 02:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  Hmmm... Nope, it wasn't done with malice. Not bogus. 24 at 03:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Edward 23:54:52, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

  All from the same site, all media-hype. Alot of people die -- this person happened to be shot by a cop; how does that make him any more notable than, say, victims of the Iraq war? 24 at 02:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  Erm, "the same site" being BBC Sherurcij 21:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm abstaining for now, but I note that this article is far from NPOV. Obviously the writer thinks the police were in the wrong and doesn't bother telling their side of the story. I also note that the author's only other contribution was to the Jean Charles de Menezes article. Obviously he has an interest in police violence. On the other hand, Rodney King gets his own article (but Rodney King recieved national attention as well). If this case recieved sustained attention outside of it's locality, then I would vote keep, but only after a POV clean-up. --Bayyoc 22:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I tried to NPOV-tidy it a bit, encourage you all to contribute Sherurcij 00:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: In UK, cop related shooting of unarmed persons is not so common. --Ragib 00:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: But either turn it into a biography like Jean Charles' page, or redo the entry so it's specifically about the incidence, not about James Ashley. It's a "nice" follow-up from the JC page.--83.151.211.203 13:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.