Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishel Jacobs


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fishel Jacobs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article has no independent sources to establish notability - all the links are to subject's sites or to groups he is affiliated with. I wasn't able to find any additional sources but a couple of blog entries and some reposted press releases. Looks like an autobiography. MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- Yossiea (talk)  15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- Yossiea (talk)  15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:RS. Yossiea (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless WP:RS can be quickly added. Self-published sources or publications by the subject, do not in themselves establish notability.  -- nsaum75  ¡שיחת! 18:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the creator of the article: Fishel Jacobs. I used the Chuck Norris article as my template. I believe the issues raised above are incorrect.

By virtue of that same argument: "all the links are subject's sites or to groups he is affiliated with," the Chuck Norris article should be deleted!

Every single source for Mr. Norris is somehow connected to his life, whether its films he did, columns he wrote, books he published.

Jacobs has been published by publishing house which he has no connection with, personally. His awards are from organizations which he has no connection with personally. The sites he serves on as Talmudic authority are not connected with him in any shape, form or manner. The articles and interviews he's given are from News outlets worldwide which he has no connection with whatsoever.

Finally, I am troubled by the fact that the discussion above lists this "deletion" in terms of "Israeli" or "Jewish" groups. My article did not mean to portray this individual in those terms. He is a proud American, and the above suggestions listing him in these groups is offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriamrosenfeld (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you find Reliable Sources that he is Notable? That's what's missing. Check these links to get a better understanding of how this works. Simply comparing to another article isn't enough. There is nothing to be offended about this article being listed in the Wikipedia Israeli and Judaism deletion sorting. It simply alerts people in these groups that there is a discussion taking place which they might share an interest in. Shlomke (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this thoughtful response. I am a reader of Jacobs' books, and have been following his career. I appreciate these insights and information and will attempt to follow them.

Frankly, a main problem is the technical side of Wikipedia. I am a professional, but not very experienced in Wikipedia format.

I will insert Notability ensurement material according to this kind direction. And hope it might suffice.

Unfortunately, I still find it disturbing listing this article under Jewish/Israeli. The man's reach is much further. But, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriamrosenfeld (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the author of the article. I've updated the article with books published by major U.S. publishing houses featuring stories about the subject of my article. Likewise for many magazines including from England, Germany, Israel and the U.S. those which are paper as well as online. As well as radio shows in the U.S., and Israel.

I've read the Notability suggestions on the Notability page of Wikipedia. And it is clear to me that this article conforms to any number of criteria.

I therefore ask that the deletion suggestion of Deletion be removed immediately. --Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriamrosenfeld (talk • contribs) 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This article clearly fits into any number of criteria of Wikipedia Notability. I ask that this deletion suggestion is omitted. --Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not that this article lacks reliable sources, but such as they are, they are entirely insufficient to establish the over-all WP:N of this subject. Furthermore, being a black belt in karate, doing good works in prisons, becoming an officer and writing a few minor unheard of books does NOT make this person qualify for WP:BIO. There are hundreds of millions of very highly productive and extremely able people like this in the world but they do not all deserve Wikipedia articles. The article reads like a violation Conflict of interest and Conflict of interest. Also note problems here with WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTMYSPACE. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have kept strictly to the Notability rules laid out in Wikipedia on writing this article. The above arguments would apply to the Chuck Norris article, as well. Yet, I do not see them aimed there.

Following are some of the Wikipedia guidelines to Notability

1. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

The partial listing of newspaper articles, books published, radio stations, and magazines all have one thing in commong-- they are not connected with the subject of the article.

In researching writing of this article, I've noted that other articles on living persons do, indeed, quote from magazines or publications which are financially or organizationally related to the subject of that article. Yet, I did not find those sources flagged. Here that is not the case.

2. Additional criteria

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. (Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.)

a. Any biography a. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one. This has been largely and numerously documented regarding my article.

b. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. This has been largely and numerously documented regarding my article.

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

This has been largely and numerously documented regarding my article.

c. Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

Beyond the above, this article adheres to all the levels of quality demanded by Wikipedia, including but not limited to (following are quotes from Wikipedia pages):

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Articles should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.

All said, this article adheres -- no less than many other articles about living persons, if not more so -- to all rules found in Wikipedia guidelines, and I request it remains.--Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)--Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC) --Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.