Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Bernstein


 * 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   no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Jake Bernstein

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable market trader and self publicist. Insufficient citations in WP:RS to satisfy notability. Prod removed without explanation by IP. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep by sheer volume of publication, I guess he is a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * a neighborly Response to TonyTheTiger
 * Whenever I guess, I often guess wrong, so I'd rather not mimic your guess he's a keeper this time.
 * The sheer volume of publication offers no supporting argument in favor of Wikipedia notability:
 * An argument popular at AfD proceedings is "She has X number of Y, which proves that she's notable" (or not).
 * We may establish notability not by the quantity of one's published work, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than with 1 million views on YouTube.
 * For more information, please see I Like It! : Arbitrary Quantity.


 * I would encourage you to reverse your recommendation — if only to a Luke-Warm Delete — unless you can accomplish what not one of the rest of us has been able to do in two years of trying in good faith:
 * to demonstrate Notability by revealing to all of us reliable, independent, credible, established, mainstream news sources that have produced any substantial, comprehensive coverage of this subject.
 * — Wordsmith (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ____________________________________________


 * Strong Keep I'm a student of Jake Bernstein, I made the original entry and have occassionally appended it. Jake's work is objective and helpful. The entry should remain, without bias, as a simple identification of a very prolific author who is also a helpful teacher. Biased content added by the misinformed who do not know Jake or his work first hand should be removed as well as references to slanderous competitors sites. The entry should remain as a simple identification and bibliography of a prolific author. --Thor1964 (T/Special:Contributions/Thor1964/User:Thor1964/WP:Santa Cruz, CA) 12:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * a congenial Response to Thor1964
 * As I've said before, my first obligation is to presume your good faith, and I hereby renew that presumption in your favor once more.
 * I understand and I respect your loyalty to your subject, Thor, and I urge you to amend — and defend — your case for a Jake Bernstein article, but only if you can ingenuously establish his notability from substantial, extant, reputable, mainstream, secondary coverage of him by sources that do not "know Jake or his work first hand," in accord with the Wikipedia policy on Notability and acceptable Sources, in advance of a reincarnation of your article.
 * I myself have not, cannot, and I've failed to find even one objective person who can.
 * Nonetheless, I remain receptive to anyone anywhere who can do the deed honestly.
 * You weaken your case (when none of us should have a "case" or any agenda at all)
 * if you choose to neglect the only important issue here (Notability), in favor of
 * such expressions of a personal point of view that our guidelines for this very discussion exclude:
 * "I'm a student of Jake Bernstein" + Jake's "a helpful teacher" = Wikipedia: I Like Him + Wikipedia:He's Helpful
 * Please let me encourage you to cite genuine evidence of Notability if you can — or perhaps, if you find yourself agreeing that no significant, substantial, independent, secondary, reputable coverage of Jake is out there anywhere, friend, to reverse your recommendation gently to a Regretful and Reluctant Delete  — since your argument here, as it stands, may carry no weight in this nomination for deletion, in view of what we find in   Notability is Not a Matter of Opinion. Your statement here
 * is not supported by any policies, guidelines or precedents;
 * does not represent a neutral point of view;
 * and seems to suggest you've not had much luck finding any legitimate sources of independent coverage of Jake for your article, which is a clear sign that your charismatic teacher does not meet the notability criterion.
 * Instead of establishing notability, your arguments and your actions upon the Article as well as its Talk page serve to suggest that you may be feeling some frustration at the impossibility of resolving the troublesome issues of Jake as a suitable subject here, while you may have inadvertently been demonstrating the dearth of legitimate coverage, and his consequent inadmissibility in the face of Wikipedia's tests for notability;
 * Some of the properties of your statement are specifically listed as those to avoid in deletion discussions like this one, and it does more harm to your cause than any good.
 * None of us should feel committed to any cause, as such — don't you think? — except to the integrity of our encyclopedia.
 * Let me know if I can help you.
 * — Wordsmith (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ____________________________________________
 * — Wordsmith (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ____________________________________________

I expect that it will just get deleted again-- this is the part that is always deleted by anonymous IP address editors every time it shows up in the article-- but given that the article is on the deletion discussion list, I put back into the article the material that has been repeatedly deleted, including the article in Forbes and the circuit court opinion: Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * William Green, "There's one born every minute," Forbes, March 9, 1999 (article at Forbes.com)
 * MBH Commodity Advisors, Inc. and Jacob Bernstein, Petitioners, v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Respondent. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit - 250 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2001) Decision (decision also available from caselaw)

NOTE: Acccording to the wikipeda history of Geoffrey.landis edits, he regularly vandalizes other peoples wikipedia entries, propogates and participates in edit warring, and has been formaly punished by wikipedia in the past by being banned from making entries for a significant time period. Geoffrey.landis has proven to be an exceptionally arrogant and highly biased individual who thinks he knows everything about every subject, and should be premanetly banned from any making wikipedia entries and/or edits due to his uncivilized anti-social behavior therein. As an example, his election for deletion of other more notable and more widely published successful authors entries in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.153.184 (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2010
 * Please do not make personal attacks on other editors. Please adhere to the civility policy, assume good faith and observe wiki etiquette. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your vote of confidence, User: 76.200.153.184. Just as a comment, I notice that 76.200.153.184 has made no edits to any articles other than Jake Bernstein-- and my user page.  I'll also note that Thor1964 has made no edits to any articles other than approximately 60 edits to  Jake Bernstein.  In fact there are a lot of anonymous editors who have done nothing except add promotional material to Jake Bernstein-- 76.247.107.66 and 99.163.50.178 and 76.254.84.164 for example, to pick just three of many.  Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep  but the first step after keeping will be for someone unconnected to rewrite the article. Absurd promotionalism is not to be balanced by one-sided reports of adverse litigation, but by a fair treatment of the person. He's notable as an author because of the multiple books by major business publishers.  DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment There's a paragraph in the Criticism section that appears to be a copyright violation, see for the source text. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See also materials from . Looks like most of this is copied from his many self promotional web sites. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (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.