Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doron Ofir

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doron Ofir[edit]

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

No indication this person meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not appear to be important enough to have attracted comment in the mainstream press and media. The existing references are just a collection of everything and anything that mentions the subject's name (and then some don't)

nymag.com: fake reference, subject is not mentioned at all.
IMBB: practiclly blank.
perezhilton.com: fleeting mention in an article that is not about the subject. Does not assert notability.
newsweek.com: Does not assert notability.Very fleeting mention in a very long and rambling blog-style article that is not about the subject - Ofir is not one of New York's new icons.
NY Post: fleeting mention in an article that is not about the subject. Does not assert notability.
blackbookmag.com: website, possibly not WP:RS, article about the subject. This ref alone does not assert notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 04:20, February 8, 2011

Keep and send out for WP:CLEANUP. It appears that his work is just significant enough for media to quote him and he is spoken about enough to meet WP:GNG.[1] A search finds definitely significant coverage in Blackbook Magazine[2] And then, as the GNG does not require him being the main topic of any article, we find he is either spoken of or quoted by such RS as Us Weekly[3] Newsweek[4] Liston Daily[5] Seattle Times[6] The New York Times[7] Fast Company [8] Fox News[9] The Examiner[10] E![11] The Iranian[12] New York Post[13] Winnipeg Free Press[14] Fox News[15] Boston Globe[16] Gather[17] MTV News[18] New York Magazine[19] and literally dozens more. It is rare that an insignificant nobody is quoted or written about. What we have here is a situation where a casting director is actually getting the eye and ear of the press. Rare, but worthy of note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between articles that are not about the subject, and articles where the subject just has a parethetical reference or at best, an extremely fleeting mention. Worse is serving up sources that don't mention the subject at all. This is a collection of simply any or all web sites that have the subject's name in them. A list of links to newspaper home pages and to Wikipedia articles about magazines appears to have little do do with what is being discussed here. --Kudpung 13:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The significant coverage you disparage in Blackbook Magazine is quite telliing. And that he IS mentioned and quoted (not trivially, even if brief or fleeting) in literally dozens of reliable sources that have chosen to quote him, is equally so... specially as he is a notable casting director and not some PR flack whose job it is to deal with the press. Not wishing to disparage sources as unreliable without foundation, I instead offered wikinks to the articles about those publications for editors to themselves check, and not links to RS homepages as you allude, but rather links to the articles in which this individual is either writen about or quoted or spoken of in context. So let's not misrepresent sources or guideline or others's comments as if folks might not check for themselves. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG, though the article itself could be improved.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 8 February 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.