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


 * 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. I think after a previous discussion and a DRV we need spend no further time dealing with an article whose deletion was endorsed 3 days ago. Salting too Spartaz Humbug! 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Halevy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

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)


 * 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)
 * — Chad hermanson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)


 * Delete - per nom and per WP:LASTTIME; SALT ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. Chad hermanson (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (I've refactored the above comment by Chad hermanson, removing out-of-context comments from Talk:Jeff_Halevy between myself and Chad hermanson. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC))
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Keep out of sympathy, why not? Jimzah32 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC) — Jimzah32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * — Jimzah32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - not a valid reason for keeping. – ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * — Nolongeranon Rob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * Comment I have to chime in >> what a foolish and irrelevant statement! Why not say nothing if you have don't have anything intelligent to say in the first place? 72.248.3.102 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So the article not being about him, not mentioning any biographical facts and being trivial is foolish an irrelevant? I'll second your final question, so why didn't you? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP Hello. I have been following this from the first time around. I want to give my $0.02. Clearly Halevy isn't the average guy you find in Crunch, and at the same time he hasn't written any books or have his own TV show. However it seems to me that he definitely is notable according to the rules of Wikipedia (I just spent about 45minutes reading them), and can't see why there's such contention over the article. It is certainly very unique to be part of a congressman's campaign (that is, used as a 'selling point') and it is also unique to be cited frequently in media, film segments, etc. I've worked with several trainers in my 53 years and none had any such distinguishing characteristics. I can't fathom why it would be injurious to Wikipedia and the community to have this article as a work in progress. If Halevy falls out of the public eye, then perhaps it should be deleted, but as of now I vote keep. -Katy —Preceding unsigned comment added by KatyW20 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * - — KatyW20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Being a candidate doesn't confer notability (but having other notability, of course, can lead to an article). Being part of a candidate's platform doesn't transfer notability. (Makes him sound like a plank, being part of a platform...) "noted for his work with celebrities [3] and athletes" also doesn't transfer notability. I don't know why, but I get a feeling that a bit of advertising may have been in someone's mind. Perhaps it's just me and my nasty mind. (UK sense of nasty, not the peculiar usage current in the USA.) "I can't fathom why it would be injurious to Wikipedia and the community to have this article as a work in progress. If Halevy falls out of the public eye, then perhaps it should be deleted" - no, that's not the way an encyclopaedia works. You have to achieve BEFORE not after getting an article. Halevy is probably good at what he does, but so are thousands of others. I don't think the naming as an 'ultimate expert' by Woman's World really cuts the mustard either. (Makes me think of Gilderoy Lockhart - sorry...) Peridon (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Well sourced, but just not notable.-- LAA Fan '' 05:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What is with the keep !votes by users that have made few or no edits? Is this WP:SOCK?-- LAA Fan '' 05:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh Here we go again... I think you're right, and I'd like to point out to the new accounts that this is NOT a vote by numbers, it's a discussion. We often get a load of 'supporters' (or possibly one person with many names) trying to influence a discussion. It doesn't work. The admins and regulars here have seen it all before. I often say this. I don't think they read it, though. Peridon (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete i did due diligence, checked the references provided, including extra ones not in article. googled him. i see no evidence that he currently meets WP notability, for any single area or combination of areas. I dont see a need to salt the name (maybe some sort of semi-protection from creation? dont know our options here), as he could reasonably become notable by our standards in the future. If he publishes a book, gets promoted to a position in the political candidates staff AFTER election, or otherwise gains fame, no prejudice to recreation. i do hope someone reading this afd takes action on investigating the unusual behaviors of many of the editors commenting on the "keep" side. I want to assume good faith, but it sure looks like someone or some group is trying to game the system, and are in addition using unhelpful language in the process. And, to say it one more time on WP, if you think he is notable, simply provide reliable sources showing it, including print refs that can be confirmed at a library (whats a "print" and who is "library"?) :)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrative Delete - This just failed a notability challenge and popped up again. Which would have been understandable, perhaps, if the article was more than a vapid stub. Nothing lost in this deletion, in my opinion. Come back in a couple years with a well-sourced article demonstrating achievement. Carrite (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP Same as last time, agree this entry warrants existence. The sources, including those deleted in the edit, meet verifiability requirements. And to reiterate once again, Halevy's accomplishments are noteworthy. I don't know a single other trainer (I did a search as well) who has been named in a congressional platform. And for the Americans here, that is not "trivial." This article doesn't warrant deletion, but should remain a stub. Once further achievements are actualized we can remove stub status. If that never happens, let's delete it. And salting this thing makes absolutely no sense - talk about creating a hostile environment here...Shayes1175 (talk) 22:24, 31 July 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.