- 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 and salt.
WP:N and promotionality were the primary issues advanced as arguments for deletion. The relevant guidelines for biographical notability are WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, and those few editors directly addressing these guidelines opined that the sources offered did not rise to the level of coverage necessary to meet this test.
With respect to promotionality, save of CSD G11 we almost always treated promotionality in articles as a matter for editing and improvement, rather than deletion. However, "almost always" is not "always", and WP:DEL#CONTENT confirms this when it says "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases." Those editors who argued promotionality evidenced a severe, recurring and perhaps intractable problem with having a neutral article. That is precisely the sort of exception that deletion policy was designed to accomodate, and as a result, this too argues on policy grounds for deletion.
A consensus of those editors arguing on policy grounds argued one, the other, or both of these points.
With respect to requests that the article be salted, the repeated recreation and deletion of this article is easily noted in the logs, meeting our usual precedents and protection policy. --joe deckertalk to me 18:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Noel Ashman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This AfD is a little out of process, but meh. Please read this first. The editor tried to get the submission posted then, and User:Tide rolls told me that DRV was the next place. However, once there, it was closed as being out of place and the article was unsalted by User:Fastily. Since then, the submission has been in purgatory and I ask that you/we decide to send it once place or the other. The subject has been AfD'd twice, but I don't know how close it is source wise to the previous versions. The catalyst for this acceptance and AfD was this request by the author. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that I'm remaining neutral in this discussion. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and resalt for the same reasons I !voted delete the first two times it was deleted. Still not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and resalt. This differs from the deleted versions mainly by being far more atrociously promotional. Moreover, prominent elements of the sourcing are phony to the point of being deliberately deceptive. For example, consider the two links to NYTimes articles. For the first link, the article text reads Noel Ashman has been a defining fixture of the New York nightlife for over 25 years, with a professional resume that not only includes a Who's Who list of socialites, fashion, music, and media staples but also circumscribes some of the most important modern developments in Manhattan's nightlife culture.
- The only relevant content in the Times article reads
Mr. Epps and Ms. Lewis caught up with Prince after midnight at a Halloween party given by Noel Ashman, the club owner and promoter, at One51, the nightclub formerly known as Tatou.
- Similarly, the text supported by the second Times link reads
Uniquely independent at the age of 13, Noel began his career in the nightlife when he threw his first (all ages) party in 1982. It was through the success of this party and the many others that followed throughout the 80's that he was able to establish himself as one of the most trend defining nightlife figures in the 90's, as well as today.
- The relevant content in the 1995 Times article reads
Starting on June 6, a local party promoter, Noel Ashman, will take over the 90-seat restaurant and bar each night from 11:30 P.M. to 4 A.M. to create what he calls a "party scene," offering hors d'oeuvres, sandwiches, fruit platters, hamburgers and desserts.
- His alleged acting career consists entirely of two roles as an extra, once as "White Man #1" and once as "Fred the Waiter."
- I can't imagine why this was unsalted, or why anyone would think, after looking over the new text, it was suitable encyclopedic content. There have been a long string of socks and SPA's associated with the topic, and I'd say they've exhausted the community's tolerance and reservoir of good faith by now. Delete it, salt it, and add a strong note to the log preventing it from being recreated without a new text being approved at DRV. (Note: I !voted "keep" at the initial AFD.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question: Are you saying that Fastily was wrong to unsalt it, and the DRV should have continued? That's what I thought at the time, but didn't bother finding out more. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly what I meant in my inquiry when I said I think there are other matters at issue here other than just the sourcing. My review of the press regarding Mr. Ashman has led me to understand he has many enemies out there, and I wonder if some of them aren't participating in this discussion here with motives that are not entirely wikihonorable. As I have said I am a student writing about the 90's nightlife culture. While many other night life entrepreneurs and club owners lives have been deemed fit for Wiki inclusion somehow Mr. Ashman's is a consistent issue, but I see no difference in the contributions - other than Mr. Ashman's contentious standing. I found the above sighted texts to be purposefully misleading, the editor could have chosen other passages from the same text that did indeed provide support for the statements. Nevertheless, if it is citations that are the problem, let me work on those, I have a paper due on Monday, so I can get that done by Tuesday. But I think in the interest of fairness, someone should consider that perhaps it is not just the sources that are at issue here, but rather the topic itself, and in that case I think I high level of objectivity should be enforced. Mr.Ashman's page should be held to the same standards as his those of his peers. Broodwhich (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Broodwhich[reply]
- I kinda saw this coming, so I'll respond to this issue now. Broodwhich, I saw the work you put into it and felt that this submission at least deserved a chance. Had I not accepted it, the submission probably would not have gotten anywhere, given its history. That said, there are certainly problems with the article and Ashman's notability, so assuming that the delete !voters have ulterior motives is misguided at best and complete bad-faith at worst. Yes, the sources are a huge issue. See WP:VRS for the standard you need to meet. This discussion will run until at the 28th (and probably longer), so you do have some time. I encourage you to focus on that and ignore other stuff since each article is judged on its own merits and is not compared to similar topics. That said, if you do see similar articles with sourcing at or below the level found in Noel Ashman, you probably wouldn't be wrong to nominate those for deletion either. Again, I understand how you feel but, and I'm truly sorry, this is the hand you've been dealt. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to say it, since it's obvious that Broodwhich put a lot of work into this, but the only reason I can see why this should have been unsalted was to be nice to a newbie. Delete and re-salt as not meeting WP:GNG. I wouldn't call it promotional, but if I were New Page Patrolling this I'd give it a peacock tag. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all I would like to thank Nolelover for the most direct, clear and helpful response I have ever gotten on Wiki, it is refreshing and encouraging! And all your comments make sense and seem very fair to me. I am loathe to be the faithless cynic, and I will happily abandon such thoughts, thank you for that check. I understand now what I need to work on, thanks to the thoughtful replies of Nolelover and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, and I look forward to producing a page that meets the standards you all are upholding so well. I also see now how my desire to point out the ways in which he is a significant character in the 90's nightlife movement has come across as promotional. I am cautiously optimistic that I can bring this up to snuff and I look forward to the challenge, and thank you Jorgath for being nice to a newbie, I need it, and the kindness has really encouraged me to get more involved in the whole wiki thing, so thanks for that, as well. Despite being of the digital generation, I am, an atavistic graduate student, still using books and such, so this is all very new to me, so thank you for your involvement, for de salting, and thereby giving me a chance! Revision to come. Broodwhich (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Broodwhich.[reply]
- I say keep it, I was out on the town back in the day, when there was a real new york nightlife and Noel was a major part of what was happening then. The entry is a tad peacock, and the sources need work, but there is a place for this page here, if it can be cleaned up a bit.
Mgcornea (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Mgcornea — Mgcornea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- erm. I have to say wait and see - the page needs to be rewritten per nole's suggestions. Ashman does hit the NYT's pages every once in a while. Even with better sources, not sure the article will meet notability, but we can see.Marikafragen (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and resalt. You can slather this pig with lipstick and the article still won't fly. Much of the sourcing remains phony or grossly exaggerated, and none of the problems identified in the two prior AFDs have received more than cosmetic improvements. Kill it now, way too much attention wasted on what has never been more than a promotional bio crafted by SPAs who appear to be friends of the subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see what the problem is, it all seems good to me. And wow Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you have it out for this article. I think it counts as it is culturally currently relevant, it seems to me Mr. Ashman is a person of note, who has contributed to society in a way that might not be what Hullaballo Wolfowitz thinks as of important, but believe me I know some clubbers who take this sort of societal contribution way more seriously than others of us might appreciate, but hey, who are we to judge, the article seems technically correct, and the corrections made don't seem like lipstick to me, but rather thoughtful and properly corrective adjustments. Tomaytoe (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Tomaytoe — User:Tomaytoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - the sources sited are independent and the quote is at least correct, and supports the inclusion of the article. I think while nugatory what sources there are are sufficient. Cerberus555 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Cerberus555[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.