Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Ashman (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 February 23.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Whilst the good faith Keep vote from DGG would have been viable, it appears that the referred club is not the notable one. The remaining Keep votes are not enough. Userfication on request. Black Kite (t) 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Ashman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Should be G4 due to previous AFD resulting in delete. However, a couple of administrators are opposed over whether or not this current version is vastly different from the previous. At this time, the sources continue to fail in establishing notability 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. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I voted delete before and this so-called new version doesn't have much more in it. Flooding the reference section with a bunch of mentions (then don't even use them as a ref) doesn't change notability. I'm also strongly suspecting that the

WP:SPA that revived it has an agenda and possibly a sock. Still non-notable and it should have been G4.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel that the references added satisfy all the criteria needed to justify an inclusion, although I may not have formatted them properly. Since this is the first time I have contributed to an article, I was "gifted" on my talk page with some helpful pages, guidelines and policies. To justify my position: From

WP:BIO

, The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. Also from

WP:BIO, “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. There is significant coverage of this person's work and person, in breadth, if not always in depth and I have included articles with significant coverage that are independent of the subject. From Wikipedia:Verifiability

: "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". All new references support all information in the article with the exception of a few things that I have cited. In terms of overall style, and by other pages as my example I have not cited every line of text. Sorry if this is redundant for more experienced editors. I am interested in nightlife and its culture and I hope to contribute to many more articles, in what appears to be a dearth of articles in this area. Todayilearned (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)— Todayilearned (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep - I found a plethora of sources about this man: Obeserver , Black Book, New York News, USA Today, Grub Street, and Another Black Book article. Not sure if ALL of them establish him as notable, but the Grub Street article does. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Grub Street articles isn't about him. It mentions him as possibly opening something. The place is more the subject of the article.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "USA Today reference" isn't actually USA Today at all. That's a RSS scrape from eater.com. And is that article about Ashman? No. It's about the fact that he might be opening something. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NY News ref isn;t about Ashman....it mentions Ashman giving some gossip about a more notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There are sufficent secondary sources (including the sources provided above by Madison-chan) to support a claim of notability. Passes WP:GNG.--Cavarrone (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The sources provided actually fail the
  GNG, which requires significant coverage about the subject. The sources are not about the subject, but about the venues which he owns or manages. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete per Cind.amuse. No significant improvement over deleted version, just a laundry list of superficial comments and fleeting references. And the article remains a puff/promo piece, with no discussion of the reportedly less savory side of the subject's businesses (which still wouldn't establish notability. Should have been G4'd. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I declined a G4, for considerable material was added, or at least more clearly shown. The clubs he owned are all of them clearly notable, and one at least, studio 54, is famous. The references prove that, and it's enough for notability. The grub Street article at least is clearly a substantial article primarily about him, though I am not familiar with the publication. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He never owned the "real" Studio 54. Long after Studio 54 was shut down and most of the space it occupied was converted into a theatrical venue, he briefly operated a small club in its building that he called Studio 54. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now owning an imitation club, with the same name, is notable? And listing a ton of mentions is apparently notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough to pass WP:GNG. Broodwhich (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)— Broodwhich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The tripe in the article reminded me of something--I voted delete the first time around, and I see nothing to make me change my mind. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.