377:
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.
48:. 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.
376:
I don't think it's a copyvio because it looks to me like the subject copied the
Knowledge (XXG) 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
251:
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
324:. 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.
611:. 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,
352:
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
520:
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.
171:
398:
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.
269:. 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
490:
281:. 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
467:
132:
452:
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.
553:
665:. 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.
537:
165:
348:? 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
751:
528:
307:. 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.
637:
213:. The references provided mention the subject either briefly or not at all. No significant coverage in reliable or independent sources.
431:, although it could certainly use some more. Will help repopulate the page for those of us who are interested in this subject matter.
68:
578:
17:
634:
382:
332:
105:
100:
109:
186:
153:
92:
778:
36:
453:
745:
697:
647:
595:
378:
328:
252:
notability, again supported by reliable sources, as a club owner, having owned some rather notable establishments.
777:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
754:) are passing mentions of his ownership of a club called Veruka. None of this amounts to significant coverage.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
147:
439:
62:
210:
741:
718:
693:
643:
591:
435:
312:
143:
763:
722:
701:
674:
651:
625:
599:
505:
482:
458:
443:
413:
386:
371:
336:
316:
297:
261:
238:
74:
96:
282:
618:
569:
406:
364:
292:
231:
193:
179:
257:
88:
80:
640:
561:
759:
501:
478:
51:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
714:
670:
518:
Per several reliable sources that establish topic notability, including, but not limited to:
327:
I wish it were a copyvio, but it looks like he's just swiped it without proper attribution.
308:
737:
428:
248:
206:
682:- Another reliable source, beyond a passing mention: Chaplin, Julia (September 19, 2004.)
713:
Yeah, it's two mentions and a single sentence quote.......not exactly in-depth coverage.
159:
683:
612:
400:
358:
286:
225:
253:
755:
497:
474:
126:
666:
325:
220:
771:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
684:"Nell's Returns With a New Name, New Stars and a Cleaner Floor."
740:. Both the sources in the article and those listed above by
491:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
357:
like they swiped it, but we can't go on assumptions here.
686:
579:"THEATER REVIEW; The Pooch Has the Last Word, Wiseguys"
205:. Notability is not established in accordance with the
122:
118:
114:
178:
468:
192:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
781:). No further edits should be made to this page.
639:(the correct page in the article to refer to),
277:. This does not equate to significant coverage
8:
489:Note: This debate has been included in the
466:Note: This debate has been included in the
291:
211:topical notability guidelines for filmmakers
344:. How do the references provided equate to
488:
465:
427:. I believe the references listed satisfy
247:I fail to see how this does not satisfy
221:http://noelashman.com/index.php?pr=Bio
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
554:"A Fallen King Tries to Comeback"
531:. The New York Times. 1995-05-28.
572:. The New York Post. 2007-11-18.
564:. The Village Voice. 2004-02-03.
633:- Correction, please refer to:
536:Century, Douglas (1999-11-21).
69:
63:
55:
52:
538:"The Extra 'V' in Very V.I.P."
337:23:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
317:23:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
298:23:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
262:22:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
239:22:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1:
552:Jacobs, Andrew (1998-11-22).
764:00:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
723:19:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
702:18:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
675:00:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
652:15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
626:15:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
600:14:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
577:Weber, Bruce (2001-06-07).
506:18:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
483:18:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
459:02:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
444:18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
414:06:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
387:03:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
372:02:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
75:02:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
798:
774:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
736:Noel Ashman fails the
529:"New Yorkers & Co"
219:due to G12 copyvio of
556:. The New York Times.
379:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
329:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
581:. The New York TImes
346:significant coverage
688:The New York Times
540:The New York Times
519:
224:(copyvio removed)
44:The result was
517:
508:
494:
485:
471:
322:Unhappy Weak Keep
279:about the subject
789:
776:
742:Northamerica1000
694:Northamerica1000
644:Northamerica1000
624:
621:
615:
592:Northamerica1000
589:
587:
586:
573:
565:
557:
548:
546:
545:
532:
495:
472:
456:
412:
409:
403:
370:
367:
361:
296:
289:
237:
234:
228:
197:
196:
182:
130:
112:
71:
65:
57:
54:
34:
797:
796:
792:
791:
790:
788:
787:
786:
785:
779:deletion review
772:
619:
617:
613:
584:
582:
576:
568:
562:"Looney Chicks"
560:
551:
543:
541:
535:
527:
454:
450:Procedural note
407:
405:
401:
365:
363:
359:
287:
232:
230:
226:
139:
103:
87:
84:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
795:
793:
784:
783:
767:
766:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
706:
705:
677:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
628:
603:
602:
590:
574:
566:
558:
549:
533:
522:
521:
510:
509:
486:
462:
461:
433:
432:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
319:
302:
301:
300:
215:Edited to add
200:
199:
136:
83:
78:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
794:
782:
780:
775:
769:
768:
765:
761:
757:
753:
750:
747:
743:
739:
735:
732:
731:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
704:
703:
699:
695:
690:
689:
685:
681:
678:
676:
672:
668:
664:
661:
660:
653:
649:
645:
641:
638:
635:
632:
629:
627:
622:
616:
610:
607:
606:
605:
604:
601:
597:
593:
580:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
550:
539:
534:
530:
526:
525:
524:
523:
515:
512:
511:
507:
503:
499:
492:
487:
484:
480:
476:
469:
464:
463:
460:
457:
451:
448:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
436:Todayilearned
430:
426:
423:
415:
410:
404:
397:
393:
390:
389:
388:
384:
380:
375:
374:
373:
368:
362:
356:
351:
347:
343:
340:
339:
338:
334:
330:
326:
323:
320:
318:
314:
310:
306:
303:
299:
294:
290:
284:
283:not inherited
280:
276:
272:
268:
265:
264:
263:
259:
255:
250:
246:
243:
242:
241:
240:
235:
229:
223:
222:
218:
217:Speedy delete
212:
208:
204:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
141:Find sources:
137:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
82:
79:
77:
76:
72:
66:
60:
59:
58:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
773:
770:
748:
733:
691:
687:
679:
662:
630:
608:
583:. Retrieved
570:"Sightings…"
542:. Retrieved
513:
449:
434:
424:
395:
391:
354:
349:
345:
341:
321:
304:
278:
274:
270:
266:
244:
216:
214:
202:
201:
189:
183:
175:
168:
162:
156:
150:
140:
50:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
715:Niteshift36
309:Niteshift36
166:free images
89:Noel Ashman
81:Noel Ashman
585:2010-05-20
544:2010-05-20
275:not at all
498:• Gene93k
245:Weak Keep
752:contribs
254:Agent 86
133:View log
70:contribs
756:Goodvac
680:Comment
631:Comment
623:(Cindy)
609:Comment
475:frankie
411:(Cindy)
392:Comment
369:(Cindy)
342:Comment
295:(Cindy)
271:briefly
267:Comment
236:(Cindy)
207:general
172:WP refs
160:scholar
106:protect
101:history
53:Phantom
734:Delete
667:Drmies
663:Delete
429:WP:GNG
394:. Now
305:Delete
249:WP:GNG
203:Delete
144:Google
110:delete
46:delete
620:amuse
614:Cind.
455:m.o.p
408:amuse
402:Cind.
366:amuse
360:Cind.
293:amuse
288:Cind.
233:amuse
227:Cind.
187:JSTOR
148:books
127:views
119:watch
115:links
56:Steve
16:<
760:talk
746:talk
719:talk
698:talk
671:talk
648:talk
596:talk
514:Keep
502:talk
479:talk
440:talk
425:Keep
396:that
383:talk
355:look
333:talk
313:talk
258:talk
180:FENS
154:news
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
64:talk
738:GNG
350:not
273:or
209:or
194:TWL
131:– (
762:)
721:)
700:)
692:.
673:)
650:)
642:.
636:,
598:)
516:-
504:)
496:—
493:.
481:)
473:—
470:.
442:)
385:)
335:)
315:)
285:.
260:)
174:)
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
73:\
758:(
749:·
744:(
717:(
696:(
669:(
646:(
594:(
588:.
547:.
500:(
477:(
438:(
381:(
331:(
311:(
256:(
198:)
190:·
184:·
176:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
146:(
138:(
135:)
129:)
91:(
67:|
61:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.