Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Halevy (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 24: Line 24:


*'''Keep''' [[User:Nitack|Nitack]] do your homework: Halevy wasn't "featured in a magazine once" -- go to the older version of the article that had all the citations from major news outlets: NY Daily News (three times); ABC News; AOL; Men's Health, Forbes, Women's Health, CBS News (twice) -- so ixnay on your '''STRAW MAN''' -- and [[Special:Contributions/82.7.40.7|82.7.40.7]] whose picture ran with the story about fitterwith...was it oh...'''Jeff Halevy''' -- why yes it was! So wrong-o buddy. And '''being included by name in a congressional platform is highly noteworthy'''...or have all the editors here been included in one too? My point exactly. Get over it. There's no need to beat up on this entry when there's ample sources and reasons to qualify notability. [[User:Nolongeranon Rob|Nolongeranon Rob]] ([[User talk:Nolongeranon Rob|talk]]) 20:25, 30 Ju?ly 2010 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:Nitack|Nitack]] do your homework: Halevy wasn't "featured in a magazine once" -- go to the older version of the article that had all the citations from major news outlets: NY Daily News (three times); ABC News; AOL; Men's Health, Forbes, Women's Health, CBS News (twice) -- so ixnay on your '''STRAW MAN''' -- and [[Special:Contributions/82.7.40.7|82.7.40.7]] whose picture ran with the story about fitterwith...was it oh...'''Jeff Halevy''' -- why yes it was! So wrong-o buddy. And '''being included by name in a congressional platform is highly noteworthy'''...or have all the editors here been included in one too? My point exactly. Get over it. There's no need to beat up on this entry when there's ample sources and reasons to qualify notability. [[User:Nolongeranon Rob|Nolongeranon Rob]] ([[User talk:Nolongeranon Rob|talk]]) 20:25, 30 Ju?ly 2010 (UTC)
*: So one article has his picture, therefore the article (which was trivial anyway) becomes about him? despite not giving one biographical facts about him? I think you successfully demonstrate my point. --[[Special:Contributions/82.7.40.7|82.7.40.7]] ([[User talk:82.7.40.7|talk]]) 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
*: So one article has his picture, therefore the article (which was trivial anyway) becomes about him? despite not giving one biographical facts about him? If it had a picture of a slug, would it become about slugs? I think you successfully demonstrate my point. --[[Special:Contributions/82.7.40.7|82.7.40.7]] ([[User talk:82.7.40.7|talk]]) 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:29, 30 July 2010

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)

We just spent a week getting rid of this rubbish, same not notable fitness trainer, strongest possible delete and this time salt it so it can not be recreated again Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEPand COMPLETE NONSENSE. Find me one other fitness personality who was included by name in a congressional platform. Oh that's not notable right, because it occurs every day? Nonsense. Halevy and his startup mind you, were included by name in a congressional platform. And all of the prior media confirms his presence. Yeah you're really on the mark with "not notable fitness trainer." If you have a gym near you why not stop in and ask how many trainers there are part of a congressional platform? Further How many are healthy lifestyle spokespeople for brands like Energy Kitchen? How many were name one of "America's Ultimate Experts" by Woman's Day -- the largest circulating women';s magazine? How many train celebrities like Vanessa Minnillo and have it covered in a six page spread in Self, along with a video on Self's site? How many have trained NASCAR drivers? And how many have had feature national segments about it? How many author articles on mind-body change becasue they also have a background in neuro linguistic programming? Oh yeah, this guy's definitely just another "not notable fitness trainer" -- your statement my friend is rubbish. -Chad hermanson (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as last time. I appreciate people trying to write deleted articles - but this suffers identical problems to last time. Fails notability quite spectacularly :) Strongest claim to notability is the congress campaign - but if you read the source it is not only WP:OR but it is also only a trivial mention. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You won't do yourself any favours by railing against every user who comments here. You have made your point twice now and that's enough. More is not better. – ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, non notable - the SPAs creating this consistently refuse to listen to experienced editors regarding the meaning of the guidelines, the quality of the sources required etc. Preferring instead their own unique interpretations such as "Also since Halevy is the founder of and CEO of Fitterwith, the coverage of Fitterwith is essentially about him..." to bridge the rather obvious gaps. Suggest WP:SALT --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of notability is quite evident, being featured in a magazine once and listed in a few places does not in itself meet notability requirements. Article re-created after a consensus delete was made... SALT IT. Nitack (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nitack do your homework: Halevy wasn't "featured in a magazine once" -- go to the older version of the article that had all the citations from major news outlets: NY Daily News (three times); ABC News; AOL; Men's Health, Forbes, Women's Health, CBS News (twice) -- so ixnay on your STRAW MAN -- and 82.7.40.7 whose picture ran with the story about fitterwith...was it oh...Jeff Halevy -- why yes it was! So wrong-o buddy. And being included by name in a congressional platform is highly noteworthy...or have all the editors here been included in one too? My point exactly. Get over it. There's no need to beat up on this entry when there's ample sources and reasons to qualify notability. Nolongeranon Rob (talk) 20:25, 30 Ju?ly 2010 (UTC)
    So one article has his picture, therefore the article (which was trivial anyway) becomes about him? despite not giving one biographical facts about him? If it had a picture of a slug, would it become about slugs? I think you successfully demonstrate my point. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]