Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Todd mugging hoax (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Merger was mentioned as a possibility and that discussion could occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Todd mugging hoax

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

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

I think our BLP policies have evolved since 2008 and this is the a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Additionally,
  WP:BLPCRIME may apply as no plea or conviction was ever entered as well as privacy concerns on the mental health discussions. Slywriter (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep: Not an incredibly significant event but I am seeing
  WP:SUSTAINED coverage of it. For example, all of these academic sources talk about the event years after the fact: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], This textbook categorizes the case as "high profile." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: This is relevant to race relations in the United States, and seems as scrubbed clean of personal data as possible without re-writing it to exclude the perpetrator's name. Though if someone found a way to do that, and delete the redirect from
  Ashley Todd, I'd be fine with that as well. Also, as this story broke less than two weeks before the 2008 Presidential general election, it might be part of any complete telling of that story. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge: I wouldn't be entirely opposed to adding it to the Controversies section of 2008 United States presidential election and replacing the article itself with a redirect, but as Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d pointed out above it still constitutes a high profile event. -Pikavangelist (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2022 (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.