Talk:James Ashby

Requested move 18 January 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

James Ashby → Ashbygate Political Scandal – There doesn't seem to be much to suggest that James Ashby is notable for anything other than one incident as per WP:ONEVENT. i.e "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". Ashby is not an elected politician, he has remained a background figure in the political system – both before, and since that incident. The lede of the article even states as much: he is "....best known for the "Ashbygate" political scandal involving the former Speaker of the House." ... Apart from that, a journeyman career as a radio presenter? MatthewTStone (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose -gate this isn't the encyclopedic way of referring to this incident. And he does/did have a life outside the incident, per the article's content. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ashby is currently primarily notable as Pauline Hanson's chief of staff, which has absolutely bugger all to do with "Ashbygate". The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also this is a BLP article. We don't name living people as -gate. Suggest a speedy close. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * *Nothing wrong with the -gate suffix. Please refer to Betsygate for an equivalent scandal in the UK, relating to a politician's wife – and also apparently relating to a diary. MatthewTStone (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A large proportion of the undistinguished radio career section in the article is not supported by any sources, and the whole section needs to be severely trimmed due to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Overall, apart from Ashbygate, being a media advisor / pilot for a politician, throwing a phone at someone is decidedly non-notable. MatthewTStone (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He's the chief of staff for one of the most prominent politicians in the country, and in recent months has been in the newspapers about every third day. The article needs less focus on "Ashbygate", not more. Getting shouty about topics you're ignorant about is unedifying. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No-one's getting shouty. I'm raising issues on the talk page, instead of going in first with a razor and cutting out any unsourced material to adjust WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. And if he's in the paper every third day, shouldn't there be a whole lot of sourced information about him? Rather strange that the the lede refers to Ashbygate being the prime reason for notability, but the term is not used anywhere in the article. MatthewTStone (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An article having undue weight on one scandal when the person is equally notable for other things is not a sign that you should single-in on the undue weight even more; renaming an article about a prominent person as a "scandal" about their behaviour on something an article gives undue weight to is a colossal BLP violation. You could be tedious and try to do the indefensible - or you could just fix the undue weight by adding the missing content about his chief of staff notability. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Ashby is continuing to be notable, Peta Credlin-style, as a protective chief-of-staff to Hanson. The sexual harassment case has also widely been referred to as 'Slippergate'. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the term doesn't seem to be in wide use, and frankly, the "scandal" is small pyjamas. Slipper himself is much more interesting. --Pete (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.