Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Halevy

Jeff Halevy

Jeff Halevy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Halevy is a fitness trainer who is occasionally quoted by the media in fitness articles. Ronz (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jeff Halevy for the context of this nomination. Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous. Halevy regularly appears on national media, authors articles, and according to a recent blog, has landed a recurring segement on The TODAY Show. Ronz was hell bent on deleting this way back when and it successfully was defended here. There is no reason to re-open this in AfD. 72.248.3.102 (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• - — 72.248.3.102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - limited notability and limited coverage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Try doing a google search before you so hastily delete 72.248.3.102 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Google is not an automatic measurement of notability --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• AND here are additional sources:
  • http://www.wellsphere.com/exercise-article/check-out-fitterwith-com-for-free-fitness-advice/1080915
  • http://www.vitaljuice.com/entry_detail/nyc/10534/This_personal_trainer_wants_to_answer_your_every_fitness_question_.htm
  • http://www.runwaynews.com/production/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4155:getfitit-2010&catid=113:health-news
  • http://halevyfitness.com/images/JeffHalevy_RedEyeChicago_1.6.09.jpg
  • http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/10/30/f-forbes-workouts.html
  • http://www.thecelebrityworkout.com/2010/07/vanessa-minnillos-tabata-intervals-and-sculpting-workout/
  • http://www.everydayhealth.com/fitness-motivation/group-exercise.aspx
  • http://www.nycrecessiondiary.com/2010/04/while-were-all-waiting-for-obamas-new.html
  • http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ae/music/s_605238.html
  • http://www.charitybuzz.com/catalog_items/94907
  • http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2008562311_zliv26fitnessyear.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.3.102 (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • And yet even further Halevy is a spokesperson for a national brand by the creator of vitaminwater: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ix_M0Jvpq4 - 72.248.3.102 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything that meets WP:BIO in these links. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Here's the definition: "notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
        • So a fitness expert who's on TV regularly, is an authority on certain subjects, has written articles, spoken internationally, and represents a national brand isnt significant? How many trainers do you know that meet have done this? What would that make Halevy represent -- maybe 1% at most of fitness entities? Exactly. This meets Wikipedia's exact criteria. If you think I'm wrong, walk into a gym and see how many trainers there have done any of the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.3.102 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
          • isnt significant? How many trainers do you know that meet have done this?, probably not. And quite a few. These people come and go over the years. Would you consider an article about the head of, say, a big insurance firm. Or City trading bank? That is the sort of equivalance; sure Halevy has television appearances and articles etc. but there needs to be sufficient notability to separate him from the rest of us. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Errant? lol. That's pure interpretation. And quite a few have become brand spokespeople? And spoken internationally? The insurance CEO is a red herring. The CEO's identity is as the head of the corporation; he isn't a personality unto himself. Halevy is fitness personality - enough so to warrant frequent international media. I believe Halevy is pretty "separated" by being a brand spokesperson for a national brand and having regular TV & radio appearances for his expert opinion. Yup, I'd say that separates him "from the rest of us." How many articles, TV shows, etc, have featured your expert opinion btw? Exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.3.102 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • brand spokespeople - I don't think that counts as notability. Many people are brand spokesmen for notable brands but notability is usually not inherited. The CEO's identity is as the head of the corporation; this is pretty much my point. From the sourcing that exists it currently looks a lot like Halevy consists of the person and the brand. Which confuses the notability issue (I haven't !voted pretty much for this reason). How many articles, TV shows, etc, have featured your expert opinion btw? - just to prove that you should always take care with taking shots on the internet; 4 TV interview appearances, presented a small documentary, regular on local radio, 3 academic papers published and a book in the works. And, no, I am not notable either AFAIK --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I looked in a few of the refs and in each of the links given above on this page, and the subject does not meet WP:BIO. Yes, Halevy is a fitness trainer, and yes, he is mentioned in several space-filling light-weight stories. However, there are countless thousands of people who do the same. Note that these stories were written not to highlight Halevy and his achievements, but to enthuse about fitness as a topic of interest to readers. WP:BIO has many points which can be summed up as "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". No such sources have been found. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Bollocks. It is Halevy's expert opinion that is featured in the refs. Further he the ref for Exercise for Men, he authored. He is also obviously the center-point for the other pieces as well. I'm coming in on this in the middle -- and wonder why all the contention over this simple entry! -- but this meets WP:BIO and we all need to ease up on each other here a bit. Cheers. 64.134.67.62 (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• - — 64.134.67.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep What's all this fuss about? I was about to add new info when I saw the AfD tag... This entry has been up for quite some time...Why are we obsessing all of the sudden? Per above the refs definitely adhere to WP:BIO...even more so on ones that weren't included, eg the Vital Juice piece and the Energy Kichen piece. Self Magazine, Nascar etc I believe speak for themselves. What's gives? 69.65.109.66 (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• - — 69.65.109.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • They do speak for themselves, but not in the way that you hope. The "Nascar piece", for example, contains not one single piece of biographical information about the subject at hand, and doesn't even support the content that it is claimed to support. Uncle G (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• From discussion page: Ronz when this article first went up there were no issues. Why should should there be more issues now, two years later? The article is well supported, neutral (and if not why don't you edit?) and meets BLP guides. How many trainers are spokesmen for national brands (Energy Kitchen), have national TV and Radio, international print, written articles, etc? You still haven't addressed this. Halevy wasn't merely "in the news" like a witness to an accident or something for chrissakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.109.66 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Xe doesn't have to address it, because it's irrelevant. What is written or said by a person doesn't help write a verifiable encyclopaedia article about that person. What is written about the person is what is relevant. And that is an issue for you to address. Above, you've failed quite spectacularly to do so, citing as potential sources for an article things that contain no information whatsoever on this subject. Uncle G (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Offtoriorob and Johnuniq. Sources to not provide the required "significant coverage". ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Why do you guys want to delete my article? Ive looked over everything provided, and respectfully disagree w/ ukexpat and Johnuniq because relative to anyone else in the field this is quite significant coverage! What promptd all this??? Chad hermanson (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• - — Chad hermanson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • What sources are you asserting document this person (not something else, but this actual person) in depth? Uncle G (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep(struck, user has vote commented twice Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)) Is everyone here also aware that Halevy was named "America's Fitness Expert" in this week's issue of Woman's World, the #1 selling magazine for women worldwide? Chad hermanson (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Notability is not fame nor importance. It's demonstrated by having been noted, i.e. documented, in depth, in multiple independent published works from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Too much testosterone here! ;) All that's needed here is rewrite as the article does meet WP:BIO guidelines. I'll take a stab at it and clean up the refs as well. 68.171.231.16 (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• - note to the closer of this AFD - This IP address, 68.171.231.16, is registered to Research In Motion Limited, an Internet service provider through which numerous individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please start by explaining how WP:BIO is met, identifying the new sources that meet the criteria. Otherwise, you'll be wasting your time. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep There's no need to "defend" per WP:BIO. As it states, "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. This notability guideline for biographies[2] is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed."
  • - — 69.127.117.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at talk] (UTC).
• By the very definition of "notable" here, "worthy of notice," certainly any fitness personality garnering this degree of media coverage (ALL media: TV, Radio, Print) for his expert opinion, speaking internationally (forget whether it was "motivational" -- semantics!), has himself authored articles, and been named by more than one large international news source as "America's Expert" (Woman's World, 7/16/10) or "Fitness Guru" (The New York Daily News 5/4/09), trained professional athletes and received coverage because of it (NASCAR), and is the ambassador for a major national brand, Energy Kitchen (created by vitaminwater's founders) is certainly notable.

  There have been arguments made here that Halevy is just 'another in the field' to which I counter, as has been stated before in this debate, walk into any neighborhood gym and ask by show of hands how many of the trainers there are also "notable" in such a way. I would be shocked, just as your better judgment, or any sensible person reading this, if there was even a single hand raised.

  On these grounds notability has been fully satisfied.

  So, once again, whether the source here is questionable by you, Ronz, e.g. in the BVI News reference, it still legitimizes the noteworthiness of its subject. Such is the same for the others where Halevy may have been a contributor to, or the expert opinion of, any given piece.

  That being said, Ronz, I do agree that this entry needs editorial revision, as someone has already offered to do. But to so forcefully push for the chopping block as you have here, and did before, is unreasonable and ruins the sense of a community that should be aimed at inclusion, development, and refinement of collected data.

  This alone is a defense in toto of the WP:BIO notability requirements. There shouldn't be any further destructive pseudo-debate from this point onwards, but rather an effort to refine the entry and move onward. I have been fair and sensible in this matter and appreciate that courtesy in return. -Shawn Hayes (shayes1175@aim.com) 69.127.117.243 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  • - — 69.127.117.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at talk] (UTC).
  • So your only response to being asked for sources that document this person, that are about this person rather than about something else entirely, is zero citations of articles about this person, a useless subjective opinion of fame and importance, and a distraction fallacy, then? You're not going to make a case for keeping the article that way. Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• The article has been tagged for review/rewrite for a good while with no work undertaken. So if the only result of the AFD is to prompt a rewrite that passes WP:BIO then that is good. Unfortunately notability and popularity are not the same thing. The issue in this case is finding biographical information from reputable sources that establish his notability. I'm actually still unconvinced that he is notable for his current achievement. Many people have TV and Radio appearances as experts. Sports teams employ, for example, "celebrity" doctors to train/support the them in much the same way, the position is not particularly notable. Many fitness trainers and motivational speakers write books etc. I actually support the inclusion of as many as is practical - but many--Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC) others don't. And more to the point it is impossible to adequately source this person.

• KEEP and FYI the note I just left for Ronz on the talk page; :COMPLETELY DISAGREE with your evaluation of the refs. God knows what your agenda is, but you need to chill. I'm rewriting using many of the same refs, which meet WP:BIO. Who made you god of Wikipedia and judge of WP:BIO cred? It completely ruins the community of Wikipedia. I really question your aggressive agenda with this entry... - 96.232.30.28 (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• - — 96.232.30.28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Just a nod to Ronz for his constructive help with the re-write of this entry. -72.248.3.102 (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ronz and 72.248.3.102 glad to see this settled civilly and constructively. Are we ok to mark this AfD resolved and remove tags? -Chad hermanson (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  Anyone is able to change their position, I have looked at the alterations to the article and the edits have not altered my position and I still support delete as not notable, more minor mentions doesn't assert more notability .Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  I've not changed my position, nor has anyone found even a single indepedent, reliable source that is about Halevy. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - I've hunted for sources and watched the proposed rewrite with interest/hope - but still nothing notable is springing out at me. So unfortunately I'd have to !vote delete --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well...I suggest walking into your local gym and seeing how many fitness personalities would fall into Halevy's category. Certainly this is much worse entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Mitchell_%28bodybuilder%29 >> Really don't get the fixation with this small entry...*sigh* - Chad hermanson (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that article BLP is totally similar. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many many many many fitness personalities like Halevy, nothing I have seen mark him as anything notable (being a fitness guru or occasional TV celebrity don't appear to satisfy notability guidelines). Your argument is regular fallacy. Thanks for the link to the other article; it certainly needs review and probably an AFD to match this one :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Still vote keep. The basic argument stands: there is more than enough to warrant Halevy's notability in his field. Further, as you all know, it's nearly impossible to collect every major TV appearance Halevy or any public figure has had (eg The View). The bottom line is that within his field Halevy passes the notability litmus test. Wikipedia is supposed to be an infinite ever-growing encyclopedia; we should aim to include -Shayes1175 (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  — Shayes1175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  It's unclear, but from the wording of Shayes1175 comment above it sounds like he's already voted here through an ip. Is this correct? --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have actually made many contribs as a casual participant, but decide to jist join the community...so hello - Shayes1175 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• As I see the comments here, we have the nominator and three delete comments from established users and we have the creator of the article and numerous single purpose IP accounts that want to keep it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Borderline noteable. Suggest discussing inclusion of any further info before inserting into article since there seems to be some POV issues w/some editors. The Eskimo 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs)

• Agree. And just because people aren't formal users doesn't mean their opinion should be discredited. I only joined the community now but have anonymously contributed & debated over the years. Regarding this entry, I've made a very sound argument for inclusion (thanks to those who seconded it) and all of the sources have been vetted. Any disagreement at this point is really a semantics game on "notable" given the entry's subject has proven, demonstrable notability in his field.

Shayes1175 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete I've read the arguments up to this point and I agree with Uncle G, Johnuniq and Errant. I'm sorry I cannot offer any further input but I believe that they have all summed up why he is not notable very well, whereas the counter arguments are not convincing. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment As most people I'm sure have noticed, there is a disparity in the votes. Established users are all voting delete, while brand new registered users and IP addresses, all with very little to no prior editing history, are appearing out of the woodwork to vote keep. One of the IP addresses that has weighed in several times (69.65.109.66) is currently being investigated for sockpuppeting (case here). I find it quite astonishing that, since this was nominated for deletion on July 15, that roughly 5 or 6 brand new IPs and registered users decide they want to begin their Wikipedia editing careers, all on this AfD discussion. Just sayin'. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• The concept of weighing "established users" is ridiculous. There are plenty of us who choose to participate from the sidelines, rather than making a huge time commitment to the Wikipedia project. There is sufficient enough an argument made here, along with sufficient references to not kill this piece. Just sayin', Jrcla2. And what the heck is a sock puppet? 72.248.3.102 (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• And "all" is wrong; Eskimo.the and Chad hermanson voted KEEP 72.248.3.102 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Users Eskimo.the and Chad hermanson are not newly registered users nor IPs. And I'm not surprised that Chad hermanson would vote keep – he created the article. So far Eskimo.the is the only non-brand new editor who supports to keep it. I'm not discrediting him at all, I'm merely pointing out that he is not in the majority. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Further thought: "There are plenty of us who choose to participate from the sidelines, rather than making a huge time commitment to the Wikipedia project." Yes, that's very true, except none of the IPs (yourself included) have even made one contribution to Wikipedia prior to this article and its AfD page. The word "participate" means to actively engage in. None of the newly registered users and IPs in this discussion have ever "participated" on Wikipedia before. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• With all due respect, you are aware of how IP addresses work, right? They're not static... 72.248.3.102 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out though that you've been using that IP address for 9 days now and only contributed to this single article. You can see how that looks right? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• With all due respect, you know how proxy servers work, right? They can be accessed by one person in one place in order to switch IPs, making it appear as if they are more than one person. Numerous open investigations on sockpuppets address that very issue. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• is very discouraging to try to contribute when your work is destroyed for no reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad hermanson (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It can be, if "for no reason" were the case. The article fails WP:BIO. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • "For no reason" is the case. This article meets WP:BIO easily. As Shayes1175 correctly argued Halevy has plenty of qualifying notability in his field. No one is comparing Halevy to Obama or Marilyn Monroe for crying out loud. There are many less notable entries per WP:BIO on this site, and this is a community site -- this entry easily stands in that mean.

72.248.3.102 (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)