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

Jeff Halevy

(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]

Delete - per nom and per WP:LASTTIME; SALT ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Salt it, umm yeah, a little anger issue there huh? Why would a rewrite with new important info (Congressional platform) even qualify for salting it? Same old bunch of nonsense, same people. This is my point (from article talk page): Chad hermanson (talk) 18:19, 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]