Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Ashman


 * 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   delete. The question being considered here is "is the criteria of signficant, non-trivial coverage present?" The consensus would seem to be that there is not - the references provided (both in the article and in the discussion) are dismissed as either minor mentions or no-mentions. I have ignore the comment from TodayILearned, as that user has edited nothing other than this page and the article. Phantom Steve /talk &#124;contribs \ 02:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Noel Ashman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with the general or topical notability guidelines for filmmakers. The references provided mention the subject either briefly or not at all. No significant coverage in reliable or independent sources. Edited to add Speedy delete due to G12 copyvio of http://noelashman.com/index.php?pr=Bio (copyvio removed) Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 22:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC) face="Tahoma">amuse (Cindy) 23:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Todayilearned (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I fail to see how this does not satisfy WP:GNG given the sources cited in the article. Purhaps a bit more explanation on this point is necessary beyond a mere assertion. According to the article itself, supported by its citations, he has some fairly note-worthy credits that suggest notability in his field. The article also indicates that he has notability, again supported by reliable sources, as a club owner, having owned some rather notable establishments. Agent 86 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The threshold for meeting this criteria has not been met. The references provided merely mention the subject briefly or not at all. This does not equate to significant coverage about the subject. Being a business owner is not an indication of importance and/or significance. While the clubs may be notable, this does not automatically confer notability to the owner. Notability is not inherited. Cind. <font color="purple"
 * Delete. Appears to be one of those people on the cusp of notability, but not quite there. Gets noticed because he is around famous people sometimes. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unhappy Weak Keep. There seems to be, barely, enough newspaper and magazine coverage to meet the GNG and enable an editor to write an adequate article. Not that I can see why anyone would want to. The article is lousy, and the subject now uses it as his promotional bio. I wish it were a copyvio, but it looks like he's just swiped it without proper attribution. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. How do the references provided equate to significant coverage? The references mention nightclubs owned, rather than the subject himself. And honestly, now that you've pointed out the subject's website, how does the article not equate to a copyright violation? It's a blatant and unambiguous copyright violation. The website has even gone so far as to designate the content as copyrighted. I see no indication that the subject has donated the material to use on WP. It may look like they swiped it, but we can't go on assumptions here. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 02:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a copyvio because it looks to me like the subject copied the Wikipedia article. When I compare the subject's bio page to the original, even more promotional way that the article was originally written, it follows the toned-down text that I and other users forced on all those apparent sock editors. Also, the subject's bio page seems to postdate the text involved; and, via the Internet Archive and other places, I can't find any sign that the bio page existed until the second half of 2010, well after the article text was in place. I'd searched in the past for potential copyvio sources, but none had turned up during prior disputes over the article. As for notability in general, there are so many news sources out there -- 80+ pieces in the New York Times alone, some of course quite trivial or repetitive; a small pile in New York magazine; and even more in other NYC-based media -- that I fear a short but adequate article could be written. I just couldn't bear slogging through all the gossip, entertaining as some of the stuff that can't go into the article was, like the complaints from ex-employees who complained his clubs stiffed them. I think he's a self-promoting parasite who contributes nothing of value to society, even if my opinion were verifiable, he'd still be a notable leech. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Now that was funny! Still laughing. No, really. As far as the copyvio, I can understand and appreciate your logic, but it doesn't absolve us from going on proven fact, rather than assumption. Thanks for the response. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 06:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe the references listed satisfy WP:GNG, although it could certainly use some more. Will help repopulate the page for those of us who are interested in this subject matter.
 * Procedural note I've removed all copyright violations from the article - that may leave it bare-bones, but, if somebody can re-populate the sections with original content, that would avoid copyvio. m.o.p  02:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per several reliable sources that establish topic notability, including, but not limited to: Per references I cited below in comment. The references listed below were blanket-deleted hastily in an article revert. Some of these verify information in the article, and some serve to qualify topic notability.
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure what your thoughts are, but the second and third sources you provided above do not mention the subject at all, while the other three merely offer a brief mention in passing. None of these equate to significant coverage. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 15:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Correction, please refer to:, (the correct page in the article to refer to), . Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure what your thoughts are, but the second and third sources you provided above do not mention the subject at all, while the other three merely offer a brief mention in passing. None of these equate to significant coverage. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 15:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Correction, please refer to:, (the correct page in the article to refer to), . Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure what your thoughts are, but the second and third sources you provided above do not mention the subject at all, while the other three merely offer a brief mention in passing. None of these equate to significant coverage. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 15:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Correction, please refer to:, (the correct page in the article to refer to), . Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yes there are some articles that mention him. No this is not significant coverage, not significant enough to establish the subject as worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Another reliable source, beyond a passing mention: Chaplin, Julia (September 19, 2004.) "Nell's Returns With a New Name, New Stars and a Cleaner Floor." ''The New York Times. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's two mentions and a single sentence quote.......not exactly in-depth coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Noel Ashman fails the GNG. Both the sources in the article and those listed above by are passing mentions of his ownership of a club called Veruka. None of this amounts to significant coverage. Goodvac (talk) 00:48, 8 October 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.