Talk:Ash Hudson

Three best references

Hi. One of reviewers Cabrils noted.... "It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject."

Let me list them here: 1. The LA Times article 2. The Japan Times article 3. The GWARISM blog by Gary Warnett

This last one requires some explaining, since I got comments for using unreliable sources when I cited a blog as a reference. As noted in Help:Referencing_for_beginners such work is often considered unreliable. But... "if an author is an established expert with a previous record of third-party publications on a topic, their self-published work may be considered reliable for that particular topic." That is the case here. The late GW was a very well respected streetwear expert and historian, and the GWARISM blog is considered something "that deserves a special mention: a true treasure trove of information, ‘Gwarizm’ represents the genius of the man that shone through his words"

To help further it being accepted as a credible reference by readers I made a Wikipedia entry for GW, and it has been accepted.

Also, some details about the relevant entry.

The photo at the top of the guy in dreads is Ash, and also the photo that GW mentions in the post... "the moment Biggie wore a Conart tee to wield a machine gun, a certain immortality was cemented..." The guy next to him in that photo is Ash.

So, the way he writes about Conart as being such an important brand, the photos, and how he uses the LA Times clip at the bottom, it helps to create a narrative that he sees not only Conart but also Ash as iconic. For this reason, I feel it helps establish that Ash as a well respected pioneer by at least one important streetwear historian. Luleaa (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Luleaa,

As requested in my comment on the draft, could you please address whether you have a conflict of interest? Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for taking time to give any input.

I do not have a conflict of interest. Ash and I have no financial, romantic, or financial relationship. We are acquaintances though. We have met about 5 times in person, the last time about 9 months ago. I do not think this qualifies, right? Luleaa (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Luleaa,

Thanks for that information. I think that connection would probably be considered as some level of conflict of interest. The effect of a conflict is, in general terms, that the page needs to clearly meet the relevant criteria despite the conflict, so basically the reliable sources should well establish notability.

At this point I am satisfied that the draft meets the relevant requirements per WP:AFCPURPOSE: "Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted".

Accordingly, please feel free to resubmit the draft and I would be happy to accept it. Cabrils (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! I incorporated some improvement I was working on in my sandbox and resubmitted. I appreciate your work on this. Luleaa (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: Note to reviewers: see draft talk page for WP:THREE. qcne (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO) but presently it is not clear that it does.
  As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’.
  Please note that some of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, press releases, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc).
  Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a promotional CV, which Wikipedia is not; and contains prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK).
  Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).
  Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
  It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX").
  Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: (i) As what you call "CONART" was/is "named for 'Convict' and 'Art'", I don't suppose it's pronounced like "see oh en eh are tea". Therefore write it "Conart".
  (ii) "Described as 'the godfather of streetwear fashion' by The Japan Times": Really? Not by one writer, Matt Kaufman? Hoary (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Note to reviewers: draft author came into #wikipedia-en-help looking for guidance on notability. I feel the LA Times source is strong, the Japan Times source is okay. Potentially meets #2 of NCREATIVE instead of NBASIC. Author may pivot to trying to write about the brand itself instead of the person, may be easier to prove notability. qcne (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)