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 speedy keep. There is no support for deletion and this seems unlikely to change -- see WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Ash[edit]

Maurice Ash (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)

Not evidently notable - can only find an Independent obituary and a The Times obituary from an online search. While these constitute two (independent?) sources (which might make the subject presumably notable by WP:BASIC), coverage there and in the article are only about his personal life and his involvement in local town planning / real estate development, which is run-of-the-mill and falls into the same spirit as WP:ROUTINE. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well-known early British environmentalist and surely three broadsheet newspaper obits is the definition of WP:N? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obits in national newspapers are sufficient. What more would you expect coverage of for a biography other than their personal life and career? ----Pontificalibus 09:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect sources about a person's accomplishments demonstrating some significant work and that would make them notable. Sources that give something besides just a description of their personality, whom they were friends with, and whom they admired. Neither the existing WP article nor the two obituaries say much outside of that, besides a list of his former positions. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking the Indie obit, it's written for an audience who already understand the passing references and their significance. It's not an accessible piece, maybe it was squeezed to a word count. But every name in there is significant. This isn't just "who they were friends with", those "friends" are also some of the more powerful and influential people in the country. Every business or social development around the Dartington Hall estate since WWII had Ash involved with it, usually as its major instigator. And those passing names in there are things like Dartington Glass, which are themselves highly notable businesses or artistic endeavours. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Being friends with important people doesn’t make one notable though. Plus, the obituary from the Independent is, funnily enough, not independent of the subject as the author was mentored by Maurice Ash (as mentioned here). If one could find independent reliable sources on the subject and his work (surely, if he was so influential then there would be coverage of his work from when he was alive?), I’d be all for inclusion of this article and it’s claim for notability. The content of these two obituaries alone don’t cut it. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, is this the "British newspapers aren't RS, see WP:DAILYMAIL, we have to use USA Today instead" wikicrap again? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note what matters is that the piece is editorially independent - it's not a requirement that a particular author should be unfamiliar with the subject, but that the decision to publish it is not influenced by a conflict of interest. Unless you have evidence that the newspaper stood to gain financially from the estate of the deceased for example, then there are no concerns that the newspaper's editor chose someone to write an obituary who personally knew the subject while they were alive.--Pontificalibus 11:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obits in The Times, The Independent and The Guardian certainly indicate notability. As for "surely, if he was so influential then there would be coverage of his work from when he was alive?" well, yes, there is coverage from when he was alive, including reviews of his books. One can find it through Jstor (for which there is a search link just under the head of this nomination), and digitised contemporary newspapers such as in the British Newspaper Archive. They can be added, if obits in 3 national newspapers are considered insufficient. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - I normally don't join pile-ons at AFD, but the idea that obituaries, which are necessarily WP:SIGCOV of someone's entire life (and thus not coverage of a single event), do not confer notability, is patently ridiculous. Of course obituaries in broadsheet newspapers confer notability on their subject. No, simply having been mentored by the subject does not make the author not independent of it, what matters is editorial independence. There is no need to look for further sources here, absolutely none, but had the nom looked they would have found them. WP:BASIC met and then some. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2019 (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.