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)

Doron Ofir

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication this person meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  —ManicSpider (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  —ManicSpider (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —ManicSpider (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.  A search finds definitely significant coverage in Blackbook Magazine   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  Newsweek Liston Daily  Seattle Times The New York Times  Fast Company   Fox News  The Examiner E!  The Iranian New York Post  Winnipeg Free Press  Fox News  Boston Globe  Gather  MTV News  New York Magazine 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep. Meets GNG, though the article itself could be improved.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.