563:
ago. But yes, when the listing was inexplicably removed from
Knowledge 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 Knowledge 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.--
582:
if you're not associated with
Teitelbaum then that's fine and we're sorry for the mistaken suggestions. Because Knowledge 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
581:
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
423:
ForeverBeach undeleted this article: "17:14, 6 February 2018 diff hist +593 Knowledge: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?
590:
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
562:
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
198:
334:
591:
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,
407:) 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.--
459:
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
257:), 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
192:
159:
310:
399:
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;
286:
106:
91:
545:
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
525:
132:
127:
382:
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.---
447:
recreations of identical material (or with no significant improvements) can be speedily deleted when tagged by anyone and checked by an
136:
253:
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
119:
213:
86:
79:
17:
180:
554:
100:
96:
174:
725:
519:
40:
550:
708:
687:
650:
631:
608:
572:
529:
490:
476:
433:
416:
391:
374:
350:
326:
302:
278:
61:
170:
646:
627:
455:. Editors can also be blocked for disruptive behaviour. If an article is recreated multiple times it can be
123:
568:
486:
429:
412:
258:
721:
370:
220:
36:
622:
I have removed some primary sourced promotional content and that doesn't leave anything of value here.
578:
564:
497:
482:
442:
425:
408:
241:(uncritical media appearances don't count). Even if the topic were notable, the article could be worth
115:
67:
515:
405:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jacob_Teitelbaum&offset=&limit=500&action=history
696:
619:
583:
230:
206:
642:
623:
387:
234:
683:
186:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
720:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
704:
659:
601:
469:
460:
366:
343:
319:
295:
271:
262:
250:
57:
671:
508:
448:
362:
546:
456:
365:, and the rest of the article is promotional. His notability claim is house of cards.
667:
587:
383:
254:
246:
242:
238:
679:
675:
663:
501:
452:
153:
700:
596:
464:
338:
314:
290:
266:
53:
400:
595:, they just establish the limited and pragmatic scope of Knowledge. —
549:
if there is any likelihood of attempts being made to re-create it.
716:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
265:
by the suspected COI editor led to the page's reinstatement. —
335:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
463:, as there had not been a full deletion discussion). —
404:
149:
145:
141:
205:
424:
If not, what's the point of even deleting articles?--
229:
No indication of significance or success that meets
361:Science (one controlled human trial) does not meet
237:). No substantial coverage of the subject to meet
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
728:). No further edits should be made to this page.
333:Note: This discussion has been included in the
309:Note: This discussion has been included in the
285:Note: This discussion has been included in the
401:https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jacob_Teitelbaum
233:(a range of little-cited papers are listed at
311:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
219:
8:
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
287:list of People-related deletion discussions
332:
308:
284:
261:succeeded in 2016, following which a
7:
24:
92:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
502:speedy deletion criterion G6
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
745:
709:00:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
688:21:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
62:03:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
651:23:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
632:20:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
609:21:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
573:19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
530:20:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
491:21:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
477:20:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
434:19:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
417:19:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
392:17:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
375:16:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
351:14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
327:14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
303:14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
279:14:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
718:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
504:, specifically the tag
641:per above rationale.
664:reliable source cited
80:Articles for deletion
670:is tantamount to
662:- I see a single
353:
329:
305:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
736:
695:. Does not pass
604:
513:
507:
472:
451:under criterion
446:
346:
322:
298:
274:
224:
223:
209:
157:
139:
116:Jacob Teitelbaum
77:
68:Jacob Teitelbaum
34:
744:
743:
739:
738:
737:
735:
734:
733:
732:
726:deletion review
602:
516:Rotideypoc41352
511:
505:
500:, there's also
470:
440:
344:
320:
296:
272:
166:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
742:
740:
731:
730:
712:
711:
690:
666:, which for a
653:
635:
634:
613:
612:
611:
559:
558:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
437:
436:
420:
419:
394:
377:
355:
354:
330:
306:
227:
226:
163:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
741:
729:
727:
723:
719:
714:
713:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
691:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
654:
652:
648:
644:
643:Nightwolf1223
640:
637:
636:
633:
629:
625:
624:Theroadislong
621:
617:
614:
610:
606:
605:
598:
594:
589:
585:
580:
576:
575:
574:
570:
566:
561:
560:
556:
552:
551:Mike Turnbull
548:
544:
541:
540:
531:
527:
524:
521:
517:
510:
503:
499:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:
478:
474:
473:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
444:
439:
438:
435:
431:
427:
422:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
357:
356:
352:
348:
347:
340:
336:
331:
328:
324:
323:
316:
312:
307:
304:
300:
299:
292:
288:
283:
282:
281:
280:
276:
275:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
717:
715:
697:WP:NACADEMIC
692:
655:
638:
620:WP:NACADEMIC
615:
600:
592:
584:WP:NACADEMIC
579:ForeverBeach
565:ForeverBeach
542:
522:
498:Annemaricole
483:Annemaricole
468:
443:Annemaricole
426:Annemaricole
409:Annemaricole
396:
379:
358:
342:
318:
294:
270:
231:WP:NACADEMIC
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
367:David notMD
193:free images
722:talk page
668:biography
660:WP:SIGCOV
461:WP:REFUND
251:WP:FRINGE
243:WP:TNTing
37:talk page
724:or in a
672:WP:BLP1E
526:contribs
384:Possibly
363:WP:MEDRS
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
680:Bearian
199:WP refs
187:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
701:Kbabej
693:Delete
656:Delete
639:Delete
618:Fails
616:Delete
597:Bilorv
593:per se
588:WP:GNG
547:salted
543:Delete
509:db-xfd
465:Bilorv
457:salted
453:CSD G4
397:Delete
380:Delete
359:Delete
339:Bilorv
315:Bilorv
291:Bilorv
267:Bilorv
263:refund
255:WP:SPA
247:WP:COI
239:WP:GNG
235:Scopus
171:Google
137:delete
54:Daniel
50:delete
676:WP:OR
481:ty --
449:admin
214:JSTOR
175:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
705:talk
699:. --
684:talk
674:and
658:per
647:talk
628:talk
603:talk
586:and
569:talk
555:talk
520:talk
487:talk
471:talk
430:talk
413:talk
403:and
388:talk
371:talk
345:talk
337:. —
321:talk
313:. —
297:talk
289:. —
273:talk
259:PROD
245:per
207:FENS
181:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
577:Hi
249:or
221:TWL
158:– (
707:)
686:)
678:.
649:)
630:)
607:)
571:)
528:)
514:.
512:}}
506:{{
489:)
475:)
432:)
415:)
390:)
373:)
349:)
325:)
301:)
277:)
201:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
52:.
703:(
682:(
645:(
626:(
599:(
567:(
557:)
553:(
523:·
518:(
485:(
467:(
445::
441:@
428:(
411:(
386:(
369:(
341:(
317:(
293:(
269:(
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.