Talk:Adi Hasak

Sourcing and notability
The current sources for this article are much too weak to demonstrate that the subject passes the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Additional sourcing needs to be found to avoid the article being nominated for deletion. Possibly there is some information in trade journals etc. It is not necessary for the source to be online, only that is be an independent third party reliable source which is about the subject. Bare mentions and brief quotes such as are in the current sources are not acceptable for establishing notability. J bh Talk  15:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * J bh Talk

Netural Point of View clarification
Hi,

I have linked IMDB page and reports on Deadlinehollywood.com to confirm information in article. Only contribution I added was that Adi has three kids (me included). Please advise what I need to do to make sure that this issue is not tagged in the future. There are a number of other sources online that confirm the information I have already included.

Thanks! Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhasak (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above about needing more sources to demonstrate notability. If you have not read the guidelines I have linked please do so. Thank you for your understanding. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with  which will insert your user name and a time stamp, I have mentioned this before.  J bh  Talk  19:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for opinion
Would you please give me a second opinion on the notability of the subject of this article. He has written several notable movies and that can be documented, mostly through bare mentions in reviews, but there is no biographical or significant coverage of him. The article was written by his son as well. I know he fails GNG/ANYBIO and my initial thoughts are to AfD the article but I am not sure how WP:CREATIVE 4C should be applied. One of his films has a review by Roger Ebert and they are all major films but if the criteria is more about Oscar nominations etc he's just not there yet. Thank you for your help, I respect your opinion on these issues. J bh Talk  18:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure about producers and screenwriters. I know that as far as directors go, having notable films (or TV series) is enough to pass notability guidelines. I'm not as sure about producers and screenwriters, as there can be many of them on any given film or TV series (especially as producers and screenwriters can change per episode). I'd say that if he was the main or sole screenwriter for a lot of very notable TV series or films then that could possibly be enough, but the coverage seems to be fairly sparse, enough to where it could probably go either way if this were to come up at AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK thank you. I will dig around some more and see what I can find. Maybe the original author can find something because of his relation with the subject. I think that if some biographical material can be found in an RS all is good. As it stands all the sources support are a stub with no real chance it can be expanded. I'll start with trying to get the unsourced bio material out since he was the primary screenwriter for the movies. Thanks again for the input. Cheers. J bh  Talk  11:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I found a few reviews that specifically mention his work:

From Paris With Love:
 * IGN called his script incomprehensible
 * The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel called it cliched
 * The Boston Globe said that Hasak "splits the difference between intrigue and inanity"
 * USA Today called Hasak's script "offensive and occasionally laughable"

Paris is Burning
 * Rex Reed called Hasak a hack

Three Days to Kill
 * East Valley Tribune said that his screenplay is "[ http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/get_out/movies/article_50df1234-9a50-11e3-a6ac-0019bb2963f4.html littered with pointless characters and subplots]"

With this much commentary on his work, I'd say that he's arguably notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming over to the article. The problem I see is that material in the reviews consist of snarky one-liners commenting of his lack of writing ability. I felt bad simply based on the titles of the reviews I was adding as sources. Do you have any suggestions on how/what to include to avoid trashing this guy? Keep it as a perpetual stub? Delete it as a mercy because all the sources are bare mentions and there is not enough to sustain an article?? J bh  Talk  17:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's OK to keep it a stub, but I wouldn't use these reviews. I think they're a bit too snarky to be directly quoted.  I found his age and residence, but I haven't yet been able to find sources for other details.  It's a trivial mention, but he signed a petition in Hollywood to support Israel. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of un-sourced biographical information
I have removed biographical information for which there are no referenced. In particular for military service, prior work and family. Whether these things are true or not there is no reliable source which can be used to verify the information. Wikipedia is not a place where information about living people can simply be added on whim and whether and the particular, personal knowledge of a COI editor is not sufficient for *any* claim. I have been able to find nothing about this person other than the bare fact he wrote the screen play for some films/TV. This material is sourced and fine for inclusion, it may even pass notability but because there seems to be nothing else I am more inclined to let the broader community decide in an AfD discussion. you have been advised of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and have chosen to ignore them. I will ask you one final time to not add un-sourced content to this article and to propose your edits on this talk page for discussion. Failing doing that and to avoid an edit war with you I shall open a case over at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Discussion there will get input from several other experienced editors and may result in sanctions. I understand your pride in your father but this is not the place to express it. We have rules about biographical content relating to living people which exist to protect people by requiring reliable sources. I will be blunt since gentle seems to have failed. If you wish to edit here you must follow our rules. Thank you for your understanding and consideration. J bh Talk  15:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As the article stands, without un-sourced material, and if you compply with our COI policies and best practices by not directly editing the article and proposing edits on the talk page, I think the COI tag can be finally removed. If you think this is reasonable please let me know. Wikipedia works best through collaboration. Cheers. J bh  Talk  18:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)