Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Teitelbaum


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacob Teitelbaum

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of significance or success that meets WP:NACADEMIC (a range of little-cited papers are listed at Scopus). No substantial coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG (uncritical media appearances don't count). Even if the topic were notable, the article could be worth WP:TNTing per WP:COI or WP:FRINGE as it seems to have been written largely by its subject without a conflict of interest disclosure (at the very least the editor is an WP:SPA), and Teitelbaum appears to be a proponent of "alternative" medicine i.e. pseudoscience, but the article is written thoroughly non-neutrally in promotion of his content. A PROD succeeded in 2016, following which a refund by the suspected COI editor led to the page's reinstatement. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Science (one controlled human trial) does not meet WP:MEDRS, and the rest of the article is promotional. His notability claim is house of cards. David notMD (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The article appears to be an advertising portal for the subject's books and web sites. A search does not find enough sourcing for GNG.--- Possibly (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This article reads like a self-promotion / advertisement. In fact, I think it's pretty blatant. This article was proposed for deletion by user Robin hood (here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacob_Teitelbaum and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Teitelbaum&offset=&limit=500&action=history) but it was overturned. Robin hood tried to deleted the article in 2011 and 2016. Reading through the edit history, there are numerous edits that have removed promotional content.--Annemaricole (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ForeverBeach undeleted this article: "17:14, 6 February 2018 diff hist +593‎ Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion ‎ →‎Jacob_Teitelbaum: new section". If this article is deleted now, ForeverBeach will restore it again. Does wikipedia have a method to prevent advertisers from just undeleting the article? If not, what's the point of even deleting articles?--Annemaricole (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * recreations of identical material (or with no significant improvements) can be speedily deleted when tagged by anyone and checked by an admin under criterion CSD G4. Editors can also be blocked for disruptive behaviour. If an article is recreated multiple times it can be salted so that no non-admin can recreate it. However, even a single recreation after a deletion discussion is rare (and has not yet occurred with this article—the page was undeleted via WP:REFUND, as there had not been a full deletion discussion). — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ty --Annemaricole (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , there's also speedy deletion criterion G6, specifically the tag db-xfd. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Pseudo-science at best, which, fortunately no-one has paid much attention to judging by the poor set of references supplied. The title should be salted if there is any likelihood of attempts being made to re-create it. Mike Turnbull (talk)


 * Having been mentioned in this recent discussion, I'm obligated to respond. I am not, nor have I ever been, affiliated in any way with the subject of this listing, Dr. Teitelbaum. No payment, no incentive, no advertising, nothing. Neither was I the creator of the original article however many years ago. But yes, when the listing was inexplicably removed from Wikipedia I made a point of restoring it, adding additional information and links that I acquired with minimal effort via Google and Amazon. The main point, is that I am familiar with his work, not least his seminal book 'From Fatigued to Fantastic', now in its 4th edition across countless printings, remaining a category Top 10 bestseller to this day. As recently as the 1990s, many doctors refused to accept the proposition that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was a diagnosable condition. That all changed with Teitelbaum's book, a 400-page detailed analysis written for medical professionals and laymen alike. How anyone (see above) can call the man's life's work pseudo-science is nonsensical. He has authored other volumes on a wide range of health-related topics, as well as textbook chapters, and journal articles. He has co-authored or collaborated with many notable authors and physicians, including the celebrated Dr. Oz. Despite his advancing age, Teitelbaum still travels the world addressing conventions and symposiums to colleagues of various disciplines. The idea that he should not be included here on Wikipedia is silliness to the extreme, and would be a disservice to the public at large who might encounter his name elsewhere and seek to learn more about him. I urge anyone who doubts the subject's credentials to become more familiar with him. The links in the article are a start. If the article reads to you like some sort of self-promotion, then edit it accordingly. I don't get that sense at all, and certainly never intended as much myself.--ForeverBeach (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for what you've written. I hope you understand that the implications that you were associated with the subject comes from the fact that this is true of many users with few edits outside of one particular biography and many articles with similar-looking edit histories on similar topics, but if you're not associated with Teitelbaum then that's fine and we're sorry for the mistaken suggestions. Because Wikipedia can be written by anybody, but there is only quite a small community of dedicated volunteers who maintain its quality (for instance, by reverting obvious vandalism and preventing people from using the site as free advertising space), articles can languish for years in violation of the guidelines we have established as a community because nobody has noticed them. This was the case here, in my opinion, and our jargon of WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG point to pages that explain the criteria we have for hosting biographies on academics (the latter is a more general guideline which applies to literally any article topic). Teitelbaum's work just doesn't seem to me to make the cut. That's not me trying to put him down on a personal level—it's just that a relatively small proportion of people meet the criteria we have decided to put in place for a number of reasons. Those criteria aren't even meant to measure whether somebody's work is valuable, per se, they just establish the limited and pragmatic scope of Wikipedia. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC I have removed some primary sourced promotional content and that doesn't leave anything of value here. Theroadislong (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per above rationale. Nightwolf1223 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV - I see a single reliable source cited, which for a biography is tantamount to WP:BLP1E and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. --Kbabej (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2021 (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.