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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ofra Gelman

[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of subsstance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable secondary sources (e.g. magazine/newspaper articles) about the person which would help satisfy WP:BIO. The article mentions she owns a company - this does not make her notable. The article mentions she has various academic degrees - this does not make her notable, either. Also, the article appears to be COI. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What that proves in my opinion the academic degrees, and her company.. that she has in fact made an impact. Also the sourcing provides some indepth coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please show how any of this is a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. None of your reasons support either WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. There are thousands that have an advanced degree that do not and should not have an article on Wikipedia. If she or her company has truly made an impact there would be multiple instances of reliable sources to support the article. Additionally, I do not understand how you can call the references "in-depth" - at best they are just passing inclusions of the individual and are not "in-depth" discussions of her work or accomplishments. I suggest you to reread WP:RS and the criteria for inclusion and help us understand how your reasoning supports Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very well said Tony, this user fails to address notability. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. 5 gnews hits is not significant, and it's all only Vegas press. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 2 March 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.