User talk:Chad hermanson/jhalevy

WP:BIO

I don't see a reference about him, the type we need to meet WP:BIO. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi There, I've been watching and decided to help as well. The first reference qualifies for WP:BIO as it is about Halevy. Also WP:BIO states that significant coverage is another form of qualification. I believe that between the firsyt reference, the fact that Halevy is part of a Congressional platform, and the proof of coverage should all satisfy the various forms of accreditation via WP:BIO. Also since Halevy is the founder of and CEO of Fitterwith, the coverage of Fitterwith is essentially about him...the author of the Vital Juice piece included his picture with her piece instead of a logo for example. Nice to meet you. Nolongeranon Rob (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The BVI article not an independent source. It's an announcement, which is a primary source.

I'm pretty sure that the BVI article is an article not an announcement from a real newspaper, the newspaper, of the British Virgin Islands.

The Powell reference is of no help. It barely features Halevy, and is not from an independent source. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Powell reference establishes notability; many can argue that any "trainer" may be cited in media, but how many are included by name, along with a company they started (fitterwith), also by name in their platform? I haven't done a search but I'm gonna guess zero. > This relates directly to WP:BIO "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."

The bottom line here is that, collectively (WP:Basic > "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability"), the provided references meet the various different Methodist of establishing notability under WP:BIO, e.g. we've got WP:BLPSPS covered; WP:V. And then under Additional Criteria, "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards: ...(Creative Professionals) "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers." I don't see how collectively, pursuant to the above the content here is questionable... Chad hermanson (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We have nothing but trivial coverage, so BIO is not met. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How is being included in a congressional platform trivial? Chad hermanson (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The coverage is trivial. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"widely cited by their peers" I don't see one citation by a peer. Am I overlooking something? --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Halvy's peers are the fitness media, and he is widely cited. Chad hermanson (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Halevy's peers are other trainers.

I think we're done here. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thats not very constructive or helpful. This was poorly argued when you sent to Afd but I have every intention or recreating this entry along with copies of this and the other arguments on the talk page, particularly how they relate to the exact crtiria of WP:BIO, notability, etc. You can come after it again but this time around I will get involved and present the according eveidence, directly correlating to the refs and the requirements of Wikipedia. Nolongeranon Rob (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when you're done with the personal attacks.

I take it there's no other arguments for creation of this article?--Ronz (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Brother, there were no personal attacks at all. It just seems like you hounded this entry for no good reason. I can literally copy and paste the WP:BIO here and aftr each requirement provide a reference or argument as to why the entry satisfies the guidelines. Why not just stub this, allow it to grow as Kevin Powell's congressional campaign takes hold and Halevy gets involved in legislation as well. And, btw, ask around -- it is VERY uncommon -- if it ever happened at all that someone with an exercise and behavioral health background was included by name in a congressional platform. No one's attacking you, this is just outright nuts at this point because all of the WP:BIO terms have been met in one way or another. Understand? Nolongeranon Rob (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I think we're done here. --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, you said you would help...how is anything here helpful? You're negating sound information and references that would be sufficient to corroborate other entries - and no, I'm not saying "other crap exists" - I'm saying there are other legit entries that have the same type of sourcing as this one does. Why the beef with this? PS just out of curiosity what state do you live in? Chad hermanson (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)