Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Smith (prisoner)


 * 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   no consensus. Good, valid arguments on either side. If the changes implemented in the debate are implemented then deleting this article would not be the best course of action. &mdash; Joseph Fox 00:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ashley Smith (prisoner)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A suicide in a prison is not particularly notable. WP:NOTNEWS etc. Tagishsimon (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

7 days later - please see my comments from OP concedes onwards, below, and note AN/I request. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There has been a great deal of news coverage related to circumstances leading up to this death as well as of the inquest. See this Google News archive search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a good article refaring to Candaian criminal history but there should be some clean up of the article--Mohamed Aden Ighe 04:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) This article does not refer to Canadian criminal history. It is the bio of a teenager who tragically killed herself while in custody for criminal-law related reasons.  2) What clean-up are you suggesting? Singularity42 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Eastmain (talk • contribs)  01:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable, news coverage isn't that broad. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very tragic what happened to Ashley Smith, but ultimately WP:BIO1E applies here. The coroner's inquiry, and more importantely, the results and changes that flow from the inquiry, is notable, but Ashley is ultimately only notable for the inquiry that resulted from her death. Singularity42 (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - A POV-driven memorial: "After she died at her prison cell in Kitchener, Ontario, Ashley was buried at the Elmwood Cemetery in Moncton, New Brunswick after the harassing moment for her. On October 23, 2007 at 10:57 p.m. aboard WestJet Flight number 480, Ashley Smith buried body came home. Cargo handlers on the tarmac of the Moncton Airport carted her out from the plane’s belly inside a white, industrial cardboard box on a tray of pine wood." The incident involved may or may not be worthy of encyclopedic coverage, but this biography is of one who is famous for one event. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of good sourcing, seem more to be a question of some re-writing rather then deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. suicides unfortunately happen in prisons all the time. and they get local coverage, this is routine WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Such tragic tales are staples of the evening news, but they are too numerous to be individually encyclopedic. Each case is important to the individuals involved, but appearing in Wikipedia should not be seen as validating one's suffering. Ornithikos (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and Rename to Death of Ashley Smith or similar. The article is in serious need of copyedit, but received national news coverage in Canada, including a documentary report on The Fifth Estate.  News coverage appears to be quite broad (230000 hits for ""Ashley Smith" prison -wikipedia").  Inquests into this death could potentially change Canadian law and policy with respect to prison operation and management.  As per Singularity42, the ramifications of this suicide are notable.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment from OP - I absolutely agree that there is an issue in connection to Ashley Smith's death which is noteworthy, and which is to do with apparent serious failings in the Canadian correctional system. But this article is not, except extremely remotely, about those failings. Right now we have a bathetic and maudlin article focused on the person, and a complete absence of any analysis of the critical issue of systematic institutional failure. Should anyone wish to address the core issue, I suggest a start might be made in a new section of Correctional Service of Canada. Only the most severe "copyedit" - meaning throw away pretty much all that is here and start again - would remedy the deficiencies of the current article. The fact that there is a kernel of notability associated with the context of Smith's death does not in any way justify retention of the current article. WP:BIO1E clearly applies here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The news media provide an inexhaustible chronicle of tragedies. Repeating them in Wikipedia adds nothing.  The news media rarely consider the past events and current conditions that underlie such tragedies, or the past movements and current struggles against their continued occurrence.  These can be described in encyclopedic form without resorting to advocacy, and such accounts can provide much valuable information that cannot be found in stories that bleed and lead. Ornithikos (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've given the article a "serious copyedit" - removing the worst parts of it, including some serious copy violations direct from the Fifth Estate timeline page. I don't know if this makes it redeemable or not, and I don't have time at the moment to continue it.  As noted in my original vote, I think the article should be renamed, but I don't know/can't remember how to do that at the memoment - and I'm not sure I can do that while an AFD is in play anyway.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I (tentatively) agree that we could have an article about the inquest and inquiry (I might hold off just a bit to wait for the corner's inquiry to actually take place and see what coverage and what effect the resulting recommendations have). I just don't think a renaming of this article is the right step.  This article is essentially a bio of the person whose death led to the inquest and inquiry.  There is virutally nothing about the inquiry other than a single sentence. Therfore, it would need a virtual complete re-write (beyond just a re-naming) to become an article about the inquiry.  I'm also not sure if we should even have an article about the inquiry before the results and recommendations are released. Singularity42 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've extended the section on the inquest and substantially referenced it. The inquest itself was delayed for several months, and has already been quite controversial.  The presiding coroner has been summarily replaced - with the attendant legal wrangling by interested parties as a result - and is currently delayed until September 2011.  Given that this represents the usual pace for a Canadian judicial inquiry I expect it will be a long time before any results and recommendations are released. (I'm not trying to turn this into an edit or deletion war; I'm trying to rescue the article before it gets deleted because I believe that the overall subject is notable and ongoing.) Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. How wide-reaching was the The Fifth Estate coverage? In the US, I would imagine that someone who receives coverage on 60 Minutes would pass the threshold of notability. If the article is kept, I agree that it should be renamed as Death of Ashley Smith. Location (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Fifth Estate is a nationally televised program on CBC, so coverage would be fairly wide-ranging. Also, the program felt it was important enough that they did two separate episodes on the subject.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yes, there was news coverage--but no, not to the extent that this would have been a particularly notable death (or life). Drmies (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep . It explains that a life of a teenager troubled her life than later, she died. The article has been upgraded now and more understandably.--Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Second !vote has been struck. Singularity42 (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Then move to Death of Ashley Smith. This isn't a biography, it's a current event. While the life story of this person is necessarily a part of this pagespace, the page should be more properly focused to events of the death and the apparent negligence for which both the warden and deputy warden were fired. User:Singularity42 makes a strong case above that while the deceased may not be notable, the story of the negligence and apparent coverup are notable. The story has been the feature of two full-length documentaries in a nationwide viewing platform. Meanwhile, the recently called inquest continues and there's controversy as to the presiding coroner's actions. All this stuff is documented on the page. This meets every section of the criteria for WP:EVENT and certainly meets WP:GNG as a notable death. If the article is kept, I'll volunteer to begin that page transition. Lots of sources, much room for expansion, no reason to think news will stop coming until the inquest is processed. BusterD (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OP concedes It is for me a foregone conclusion that the article will be kept, and I welcome the offer of input from Buster and others to turn it into an article we can be proud of. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there's zero shame in accepting consensus when it seems to disagree with your initial intention. There's much wisdom to be gained from actually listening to each other. I'd suggest you withdraw the nomination, since there's no clear consensus to delete, then move the page as the discussion has suggested. Then I'll do the copyediting and some additional sourcing. I'll watch the documentaries to find additional sources. If you want to watch my back, that would be awesome. It's entirely possible the nice editors above who've done such a nice job so far will do this all by themselves. But take no regrets here. Consensus seems to indicate the information belongs in an encyclopedia, but I agree with your nominating assertion, in view of what was on pagespace before you so asserted. It turns out this is important subject matter, but not viewed through the prism of biography. BusterD (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Notwithstanding Tagishsimon's concession above, I want to be clear that as one of the delete !votes, I am not changing my !vote at this time.  I think we all agree that the fallout from Smith's death is (or will be) notable.  I say will be, because we simply do not know the fallout yet.  The criminal charges have been dropped.  The inquest has only heard some of the evidence. A lawsuit is outstanding.  I would support an article called Ashley Smith inquest (or something like that), but I do not support an article called Death of Ashley Smith, since it is the fallout from the death that is notable, not the death itself. There is no news deadline with Wikipedia.  Let's wait for the inquest to happen, have the resulting secondary source commentary, and write an article based on that.  I don't think a consensus has been determined yet. Singularity42 (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) To be clear, as someone who works in the area of youth and Canadian criminal justice, I expect the inquest recommendations will be extremely important and notable.  Singularity42 (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's entriely possible this should be shuttled over to Requested Moves so we could develop some consensus for proper titling. I see no problems with Ashley Smith inquest. Anybody else got opinions about withdrawal of nomination and renaming to event pagespace? BusterD (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comments, Buster. I add my agreement to Singularity's post, that the kernel of notability is the ramifications of the death, rather than her life or death; I would be happy for the time being with Ashley Smith inquest, noting that this satisfies Buster also. I have not read AfD rubric sufficiently to understand the effect of withdrawing my nomination (I'll do that in a second) but clearly I'm but a single voice here. I tend to think it would be better to find an admin or someone familiar with AfD to close this AfD - we're over the 7 day mark. I'll continue to take an interest in the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To closing admin: Please note the discussion immediately preceding this comment. Nominator is willing to withdraw nomination in the face of a no consensus ruling. Page consensus seems to indicate a page move, but move target isn't clear as of this timestamp, and consensus isn't clear on either subject. BusterD (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not sure if my position is being properly reflected by the above comments (although I can see why there might be a misunderstanding.  Let me clarify why I am still !voting delete, and why I think further AfD discussion is required.  (I would support a re-listing).  My position is:
 * An article called Ashley Smith inquest should be created at some point, perferably when the inquest is completed and there has been sufficient secondary source commentary (which is not the current situation).
 * The current article being discussed is Ashley Smith's bio and details of her death, with a paragraph about the fallout from her death. Whether under the current name or Ashley Smith inquest it will still be a bio article.  The current consensus seems to be that Ashely Smith is not notable, but the fallout and/or inquest is/will be.
 * A bio article is not what I mean by Ashley Smith inquest in my first point.
 * The inquest will be notable. Right now, though it is just news with nothing much happening with it (other than a controversial change of presiding coroners).
 * Therefore, the bio article should be deleted (or maybe userfied for a while), and then we create Ashley Smith inquest when we have more secondary source commentary about the inquest.
 * I would therefore support re-listing this AfD to determine if there is consensus between the following two options: 1) "Keep with a page move" or "Delete (with a new article created later about the what happened at the inquest)". Singularity42 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not trying to guide the closer except to attention. I have no problems with a relisting to let more eyes and minds be brought to bear here. Normally if the nominator wants to withdraw, the procedure is over. But as I've stated and you concur, consensus is still not especially clear. So a relist might be very appropriate. BusterD (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OP Comment Again, for clarity, I concur there is not consensus, and for that reason anticipated we could close and keep. I'm persuaded that the two episodes of The Fifth Estate and other sources satisfy general notability guidelines. I tend to think the chain of events that are notable are the treatment of Smith and what I anticipate will be the outcomes - inquest, penal policy changes, &c. Per Singularity, I accept that we do not yet know what the outcome will be. I guess where I think I differ from Singularity is in believing that GNG is already met, and/or believing that the AfD outcome will in effect be keep, even if only by no consensus to delete. That being the case, my preference is to take up Buster's offer to put time into the article, and to minimise the effort of all expended in the AfD process. Beyond that, I have no strong views on relisting or userfying, one way or another. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2011 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.