Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:APD and James Boyd

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: redirect to Shooting of James Boyd. Redirecting instead of deleting since there's no real reason to delete and lose the history. No objection to anyone reverting this at any time to keep noodling around on the draft. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:APD and James Boyd


Stale draft subsequently moved to mainspace as Shooting of James Boyd. &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll check this. If in fact it's just an early draft of the current article I do not object to its deletion, but I am not the originating author of this article, as I recall; I just updated and substantially edited it. The dates should be carefully checked -- I'll do this, but I am just saying it is needed -- as I began making some needed changes in draftspace on this article because an SPA with some strange ideas was impeding progress. I am however on a wiki-deadline just now (the CTX project) and need to focus on that for a couple of days. I do want to return to this article because it was an important police shooting, pre-dating Ferguson, which was part of the national outcry over police militarization. It also needs to be better intergrated with the hagiography at Albuquerque Police Department. PS, thanks for the ping; I will advise. Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - a cursory check appeared to show that the draft material was all now within the main article- making it superfluous, I thought- but if you would like me to withdraw this MfD to allow you to work on it further, then of course I'm happy to do so. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * you don't need to do that. It may be a loose draft; I do go to draftspace I want to work something out by myself. It needs more than a cursory check though, is all I am saying. The points of contention were pretty far down, in the section that talks about the prosecution case. As I recall the SPA was objecting to something the prosecutor said because he said her statements were NPOV and he either could not or would not understand that *we* have to be neutral not the prosecutor's attributed statements ;) ...and other fun wikidiscussions of the kind. This is assuming it's the same draft, but a quick glance says it's lengthy and may in fact contain work I want to bring in. Thanks again for the ping. I promise to tell you something one way or the other soon. Elinruby (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.