Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Todd


 * 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 move to Ashley Todd mugging claim. While it is indisputable at this point that the events are worthy of an article, there is not likely to be enough for this to be a biography. Blueboy96 02:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Todd
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT, BLP concerns, in particular WP:BLP1E -- Kendrick7talk 18:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (this is actually the first nomination, I used the wrong template)

Keep. This is history - Ashley Todd gained enormous attention for this alleged attack, portraying Obama supporters as potentially violent. As a part of history of the minor events that surround a presidential race, it is important in order to study in the future (whether for a professional researcher or the average high school student) it must be maintained and updated. It would also be another good example of court procedure for cases of self-inflicted injury in order to frame and stereotype another person or group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.155.32 (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep How can this be considered for deletion? This is a huge issue. There is an entry for Tawana Brawley after 20 years, how can this girl not have one? This incident will define the Drudge Report and Fox News in the same way Tawana Brawley defines Al Sharpton. This is a part of history. A girl using racism and fear mongering to try to sway an election and two mainstream media organizations pushing it. The articles about this may use the description "African American" now that we know it's a hoax, but when they were selling it, it was a "dark skinned, black male" This is a textbook example of fear mongering and racism in American elections, and it will be remembered as such. Considering the entry for deletion is preposterous and obviously politically motivated. There will be without question an entry in a year, and in ten years. Conservatives simply don't want one for the next two weeks. There is no debate here. In fact, this woman may come to define the entire historic campaign of the man who may become the first black president in the history of the United States. This is a part of history that belongs in an encyclopedia, without question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.110.98 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now this IS news. After the 4th it'll be old pretty soon.Ralf-Peter (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Leave it up, at least until 4 November. People are going to be looking for information regarding this subject, and Wikipedia should be the place they go. (talk)
 * No, Wikinews is where they should be going for short-term news stuff, this is an encyclopedia not a news service. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to say "delete the article, and close this debate" and let's come back to both on November 6th. This US-political stuff is getting boring.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm tempted to say, "Don't read articles and don't click on links that don't interest you." Moncrief (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree: fortunately "boring" is not a criteria for deletion. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope Wikipedia doesn't rely on one person complaining that something is "boring" as sufficient grounds for deletion of anything. Has to be one of the most ridiculous and childish comments I've ever seen here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.72.93.172 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, for now. Give it a few more days, see how this plays out in the news and how it affects the campaigns. It may be more important than we feel the need to give it credit for. Just look at what makes the headlines, papers, blogs and speeches these days. AJ Kirwin (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But, WP:NOT. We should delete this and restore it if at some later date should it turns out to be of historical importance. -- Kendrick7talk 19:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not news? Do a Google News search. It's news. . If she was simply a victim (no fault of her own) then many BLP/privacy concerns come up. She admitted to staging a hoax. Many of the BLP concerns melt away. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Not news reports.  Please read the policy that is linked to, rather than the acronym. Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If you look at how much national play this story has had, the hits in Google News, and attention on FOX News and Drudge, you will see this is certainly notable. And I'm not sure when this silly ONEEVENT "policy" came into play, but it should be eliminated. By that logic we should delete Lee Harvey Oswald because he's only known for one event. Weird policy creep has taken over Wikipedia. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oswald is known for at least two events, in my opinion. Hint: the second event is why WP:BLP no longer applies to him. -- Kendrick7talk 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Red herring. Even if he was not killed by Ruby and was sitting alive and rotting in a cell now, he would have an encyclopedia article about him. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But if he had lived, he would have had a nationally covered trial, which would be the 2E in your scenario. If some 2nd event of national import comes along involving Ms. Todd, I'm right there with you. -- Kendrick7talk 20:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It came into play in May 2007, and was, as far as I can tell, the result of a groundswell from a lot of editors. The were some rumblings from Jimbo Wales about imminent policy changes beforehand, but things really came to a head at Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23.  I suggest that you read the discussion, including the part that is in the big green box.  I suggest that you then read Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff.  Uncle G (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for now Whilst we've evidence the event is newsworthy, we really can't discuss the encyclopedic importance for a few weeks. Alternatively, merge/move to some article about the EVENT. The person's name is trivia here, it is the happening that's important if at all. The comparison with Lee Oswalt is absurd, he's been discussed in the media for decades, and had multiple biographies written about him, this is tomorrow's "who? never heard of her?" --Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename/Move - Clear WP:BLP1E violation. Cover the event, not the person. Move to something like "Ashley Todd false mugging claim or something like that.--HoboJones (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to my that the main "event" in question did not actually occur, so there is no significant event that's actually separate from the WP:BLP nature of the article. Are we going to have an article every time someone lies to a cop? Re-titling is mere a rearranging of deck chairs. An article about a person who lied to the police isn't enough of a different creature from an article about a lie told to police by a person. -- Kendrick7talk 19:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we keep this article we clearly do not need to have an article for every person that lies to cops. The thing that distinguishes this event is the magnitude of the media coverage surrounding the lie and its connection to the US presidential election. That's what gives it notability (if any), not the fact that it's a lie to a cop. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good reason why WP:BLP1E is flawed and should likely be scrapped. Honestly it's rather new policy and is misguided in terms of obsessing about "events." Encyclopedias are about people, and people can be notable for one event. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias are about people? I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This AfD is deletionist over-reaction. Moncrief (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm normally one of the more strident preservationists on the project, but I'm not seeing this one. -- Kendrick7talk 19:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Google "Ashley Todd" for a start. This case is rather central to the presidential campaign at the moment, and is a flashpoint/symbol of lingering racial and political issues in the United States. Moncrief (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, although it isn't in the article yet, it's also relevant because McCain and Palin both phoned Todd with support before her story was exposed as fraudulent, and the story was being pushed heavily by right-leaning media outlets in the U.S. This isn't just some random local news story. Moncrief (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Break 1

 * Keep Joe the Plumber was nominated for deletion the day he became an election phenomenon also. We should let the article stand until sufficient time has passed to assess notability.  Not many people would argue for deletion of Joe today, would they? Amazinglarry (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is news worthy and has gotten a lot of public attention. enigmasoldier —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC).
 * "Newsworthy" is not a criterion for inclusion here. This is an encyclopaedia.  You appear to be looking for a newspaper, whose criteria for inclusion would include "newsworthy".  That is over there.  Please base your rationale upon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh, not this old saw again. Newsworthy is subset of notability. Of course it's relevant. Wikipedia has consistently served the function of following and cataloging what is "news." -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No it has not. I repeat: the newspaper is over there, created especially because this project is not a newspaper. Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is all over the news, and people will be searching for it. mikesolo (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. they can look elsewhere for that type of content. RMHED (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - She's been covered by dozens of reputable sources. Indisputably notable. Binarybits (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please point to even one of those sources that provides biographical information about this person, upon which a Wikipedia biographical article, documenting this person's life, can be based. Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of stubs for people who should have articles on Wikipedia (e.g., actors, athletes) that don't have that sort of information. Samer (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete textbook example of WP:BLP1E. RMHED (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good reason why WP:BLP1E should be overhauled or stricken altogether. This was never the standard in the first five years of Wikipedia's existence, and BLP fears have made it too oppressive in getting rid of articles. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP1E BLP1E BLP1E.  howcheng  {chat} 20:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep at least until the election. For example, reports are already starting to come out comparing her to Tawana Brawley. Samer (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete quickly Classic BLP1E. I don't care how many people come here and vote... This isn't a vote and this violates our policies. Bastique demandez 20:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a CSD for this, perhaps. But BLP1E is not a CSD, so no deletion should be done out of process. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The incident itself is clearly notable and deserves an article in Wikipedia, and there's nothing to name the article after but Ashley Todd herself. BLP1E is a bad standard, one that very badly needs to be updated in an age and media environment when individuals can rapidly become notable for single events. Jumping up and down and yelling "BLP13, BLP1E!" doesn't change that; it just makes Wikipedia's current guidelines more out of touch with the times. Fumoses (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've learnt precisely the wrong lesson: in an environment where the Internet and media can rapidly get attention for single events blown out of proportion, Wikipedia--if it wants to be a trusted source and not some amateur off-shoot of News of the World--has a positive duty NOT to itself be contributing to such fire-storms, and instead approach these things rationally and objectively. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can be a trusted source if it provides reliable, sourced NPOV information. Many many people go to Wikipedia FIRST when they want information. Wikipedia may be the best place for people to turn to find NPOV information about Ashley Todd. Kingturtle (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:BLP1E Unless there's an article somewhere about Racial issues in 2008 Presidential campaign, where this could be a subheading. That poor messed-up kid. betsythedevine (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be as specific as Racial issues in 2008 Presidential campaign. Racism in the United States would work too. Kingturtle (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a news source. No one will remember her name in a week, and neither should they. Therefore delete per WP:BLP1E Rockpock  e  t  21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per . Cirt (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The subject is not notable outside a single event and this article will not serve any further purpose in a few days when the media found someone else to shoot at.  So Why  21:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not the news and WP:BLP1E. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are two incidents, are there not? The allegation of assault, which was covered heavily in the media...and the uncovering of the hoax, which is currently being covered heavily. How is this BLP1E? I also believe this will be a story that sticks around for possibly years to come...so at the very least maybe a merge into United States presidential election, 2008 under controversies? Alexander (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think because both "incidents" are actually the the same incident - the "assault" and what happened afterwards. I doubt that anyone will know her name in years to come, I cannot recall the names of similar people who were short-time covered in the years before.  So Why  21:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Miranda Prather has an article on Wikipedia for a one-time faked assault, and Ms. Todd is already being charged for filing a false police report (who knows if it will go to trial?). I at least think this is worth seeing play out. Alexander (talk)
 * Furthermore, I would consider these two events - as the news coverage on October 23, 2008 was of a decidedly different tone and discourse than today's. Had this been for just the assault, of course that would be BLP1E - but now that there's a hoax unearthed, and due to the extraordinary circumstances of this election (race/gender) I have no doubts this will be discussed for quite a while. Alexander (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete - Clearly a BLP1E/NOTNEWS issue. This should be covered as part of the campaign article, if at all.  And, frankly, I'm not sure it even needs to be there.  If the story - or the subject - rises to greater notability in the future, we can recreate then.  For now, though, I don't see the point.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - One time deal, not of future interest.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS - this is not "verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Break 2

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:BLP1E. While I do agree that we sometimes have articles about living people notable for one event, those are generally cases where coverage by reliable sources persists, which I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting will occur here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Find somewhere in the main articles about the campaigns to put this information in. The event is notable, but only in context. The individual is not notable at all, as per BLP1E. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - obvious BLP1E. Can be recreated later if she really has any lasting significance - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: clearly notable, proven by reference, not in violation of WP policies or guidelines as far as I can tell. It's a pretty standard case of a notable event getting a page while it's still fresh in the news. This happens often, and just as often people nominate it for deletion. Leave it be, see how it pans out and if it doesn't maintain notability deal with that then. We also have to deal with some serious WP:POV issues here, and that can't be done in this context. That's not what Afd is about. If you have an issue with the POV of the article, then edit it to keep it within guidelines and policy. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly support keeping articles that have the potential to improve, but in those cases those are articles about things that are notable now and just need time for the article to build up. I don't see that this person is notable at this moment in time.  Sure, it's possible that the story will have legs and evolve into something more than it is now, but that's a lot of crystal balling. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep - this has received national media attention. The unusual aspects of the story also make it notable. It reminds me of the Runaway bride case. Hoaxes are fascinating - and this one is notable. Kingturtle (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Before this was a known hoax both Fox News and the Drudge Report used this alleged attack as fodder for their own purposes. This is a national wide story, and the hoax element makes it especially notable. Kingturtle (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Todd and Jennifer Wilbanks based their hoax on playing into racial stereotype fears. They both claimed to have been attacked by black men. This adds to the notability of this case. A) It was in the mainstream media, being played as a BLACK MAN crime, and then B) we discover it was a hoax designed to play into BLACK MAN fears. Kingturtle (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it's a news story not an encyclopedia biography. How on earth did you become a crat with such bad judgement? RMHED (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOT. --Tocino 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E have any meaning whatsoever, this has got to go. RayAYang (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:NOT - and per fuzheado. If there's BLP issues, address them, Special:DeletePage isn't the best way to do it -- Tawker (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a minor news event, not an encyclopedia topic.    -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is as stated above a minor news item and will be forgoten about in 6 months time as per WP:NOT. BigDunc  Talk 22:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Oneevent does not imply to important events, & if people are misusing it for things like this, it need rewriting. This will probably be mentioned in histories of the campaign published afterwards, as they customarily are by participants and journalists, and thus meets the test of permanent interest. People who choose to participate in major public happenings do not have a presumption of privacy.  If NOT#NEWS has any rational meaning, this stays. DGG (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But this isn't an important event. It's a piece of random trivia. In three weeks, no-one will care, more than likely. I agree that it will be mentioned in histories of the campaign, but that doesn't make it independently notable. Not every footnote needs its own article. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Indeed. If it is mentioned in histories of the campaign published afterwards then, when that happens, it may be appropriate for mention in an appropriate article in a historical context. It may also end up as tomorrow's fish and chip paper, just as thousands of other of news stories do once the news cycles moves on. We don't know. Until we we do, this is nothing but a news story about a non-notable person who is remarkable for a single, extremely recent incident. Rockpock  e  t  23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete this is a "one hit wonder". There will be no coverage of her after a few days Shambalala (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete quickly (without prejudice to recreation later as events unfold) - as irredeemable BLP vio (per "do no harm") and BLP1E. The poor woman seems to be mentally disturbed.  Yes, it is all over the newspapers today and that is bad enough but we don't need to legitimize the prurient interest by making it part of the encyclopedia.  It is too early to know whether it is notable, what happened, and what the outcome will be.  In the meanwhile the article has little encycloepdic value and, though important to today's news, almost no bearing on the election or anything else.  Wikipedia has no deadline, so if this turns out to have some lasting notability and things are actually proven (e.g. she publicly admits or is convicted of the hoax, rather than reports of what she supposedly told police) we can reconsider.Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Convicted? Of a misdemeanor?? We'd need to start 10,000 BLP's a day in the U.S. alone.... -- Kendrick7talk 23:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Maybe 5 of those misdemeanors a day are notable.  The other 9,995 are probably not, even though many of them end up in the paper somewhere or the other.  My point is that without a conviction or some other proof all we have is a police report.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Referring to her as seemingly "mentally disturbed" on a page that will remain in the archives after her bio is deleted is probably not ideal, per BLP. Rockpock  e  t  00:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to Ashley Todd incident or Ashley Todd hoax, and we have something notable to discuss, even if . Ashley Todd herself is not. This incident and the publicity it received are good examples of the dysfunctionality of U.S. politics. I should also point out that whether she is prosecuted and convicted for lying to the police likely will have more to do with the politics of the local prosecutor than the merits of the criminal case. And if she is mentally disturbed, this is not in itself a reason to delete the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Move/Rename This article appears to be in conflict with the BLP guidelines, though if it was removed and wikipedia had no information on the subject it would be a loss for the public. If anything, it should forward to an article about the incident.  There is good information in this current article, and contributors have spent time collating this information.  The article should stay up until merged with an article on the incident.rmosler (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Break 3

 * Keep or delete the Willie Horton entry as well. Seems like a double standard to have a Willie Horton entry but then rush to delete this when the story isn't even done yet. I'm not a regular wikipedian and I do understand the notion that this should be removed, I don't think there should be a double standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.96.70 (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, its notable already, and the coverage is going to just get more intense if this does affect McCain's performance in the election. Note: Those accusing me of crystal balling with the last part of the statement, take a good look at the first part... She's ALREADY notable. As an aside, how'd I know thatI'd find that A: There'd be an article on this woman, and B: it'd be up for deletion? Seems like standard fare when something like this happens. Article is created, then bam, its up for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it seems clear to me. It doesn't matter what her mental health is.  She made national news, and it has a direct effect on a very close presidential election (in the most important state).  This story is only going to grow as the news comes out that the McCain campaign promoted it before the facts were known.  It is a legitimate article.  Agrippina Minor (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E -> Move and rewrite to cover the event, not the person. 78.34.134.173 (talk) (User:Everyme logged out) 00:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Bastique amongst others. Orderinchaos 00:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a news item about a single event, and unless and until it becomes a genuine biography there's no point in having it other than making permanent her shame. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I do not think there are valid WP:BLP concerns here. WP:BLP1E says "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."  In this case, the "larger subject" is the fraudulent actions that Ashley Todd chose to commit.  There is no way that Ashley Todd can do something which splashes the photo of her face, with the backwards 'B' she put on it herself, on TV screens and computer monitors all across the nation, and then say "oh, but I myself am still a low-profile individual."  Other WP:BLP concerns only apply if the information is poorly sourced, but I see no evidence of that.  Now, one might argue that the "larger subject" itself, the entire "Ashley Todd affair", is only a transitory blip on the screen, and will be forgotten four weeks from now.  That's very possible but I do not think we should be looking into our WP:CRYSTAL balls and declaring that unknown state of the future to be established fact and calling for a deletion on that basis.  I would fully support holding a deletion discussion in three or four weeks -- but I think that calling for deletion now is premature. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is already having an effect on the campaign and will be one of the resounding issues as much as 'joe the plumber' has become. --87.194.102.36 (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge/Move/Rename: It says cover the event, not the person. Fine.  Do so.  Tons of people are known for one event and one event only, including just about every  murder/suicide school-shooting suspect.  - BalthCat (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Many people are probably looking this article up, which is a good criteria for notability and inclusion in Wikipedia IMO. We can perhaps consider deletion again in a few months when things have settled down. Thue | talk 01:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/Move to Ashley Todd incident or Ashley Todd hoax. Cshirky (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This person is only known for one event.  How the relevant event will be best treated (its own article, a few sentences in some other article about the presidential race, or not at all) is a separate issue. --Allen (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly violates the BLP policy (on people notable for only one event). Policy violation = delete. Wikipedia is not the news, and she will be here today and gone tomorrow. Speaking purely to common sense and ignoring policy: Deleting this article doesn't mean the information doesn't need to disappear, it can easily be added to the campaign article. What is important about this is the event, not the person. Independent bios are for notable people. Notable sub-events in a campaign should be added to a campaign's article. Steven Walling (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to Ashley Todd incident or Ashley Todd hoax as others have suggested, or Merge contents into an existing article, for example United_States_presidential_election,_2008 or Dirty_tricks. This article is a problem as a bio; a biography of Ashley Todd should cover her whole life, not just one negative incident.  Possibly in the future reliable sources will put out enough information on Todd's life to create a balanced bio, but we don't have that now.  On the other hand, Ashley Todd hoax or something similar doesn't purport to describe Todd's whole life, and (should be) oriented towards the context and social effects of the hoax, rather than details of Todd's personal life. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with the idea that this is a trivial incident, that we should wait and see whether the media continues to follow it in order to decide its notability. This is no common crime, but an attempt to derail the 2008 presidential election that might have succeeded if it had been slightly better planned.  The seriousness of the event, and its relationship to past racial/political controversies, make the incident notable regardless of whether reporters continue to follow it in the future.  It's notable now, and therefore is assumed to be notable forever. Baileypalblue (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2008 (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.