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 delete. Consensus is that there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, on the basis that while a lot of coverage quotes the subject, very little is actually about him. Mkativerata (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Aviv[edit]

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

Non-notable biographical article. I do not believe that this person meets the general notability guidelines, nor the academic notability guidelines (as an adjunct professor). Bob Re-born (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You should have mentioned that he is also the CEO of Interfor, Inc.,[1] an international investigation and security consulting firm, as well as an expert on security issues, frequently appearing on major media outlets. New york art editor (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find many sources. Looks like commercial spam. Please correct me if I am wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep He's been used as a talking head by Lisa Evers at Fox News quite a lot in New York and I've seen him on some other networks. Overall I think it's pretty clear that he fits the criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.192.98 (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage abount the subject as opposed to just a source of quotes on security. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's a plausible case for WP:PROF#C7 based on his being quoted in the media on security issues (though I'm not convinced that the article is accurate when it says his quotations are frequent). But in order to have something to write about him and satisfy WP:RS and WP:V we need sources that are independent of the subject and say something nontrivial about him (rather than merely quoting him), and I'm not finding any of those. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The subject is a well-known person in the New York security industry, which is the country's largest. I believe that the page should not be removed but UPDATED. I have noticed a number of articles in Security Director Magazine (www.asisnyc.org/securitydirector.htm) authored by and at times discussing the subject. I wonder why they were not added. He authored an article on Terrorism Vulnerability Assessments and other topics. ASIS is the governing body of the industry and his mentions are therefore notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presswatcher (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Presswatcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The guy works for his dad's security company and tries to get himself and the company's name in the press. Fair enough, that's biz. Does it add up to something notable enough for him to be the subject of an encyclopedia article? Hardly. Ghits turn up a quote here, a blurb there. I especially like this one, where his WP entry is listed in the upper-right heading, sandwiched between in-line ads. Or is his WP entry also an in-line ad? It's hard to tell. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he gets in the press alot, but little or none of the press seems to be about him. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:11, 22 October 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.