Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Mackey

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.

Jerome Mackey

Jerome Mackey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources consist of a few passing mentions, which is not enough to meet

• NOTE: I'm listing Jerome Mackey's Judo Inc here as well, as both articles seem to share common ground and the latter was a csd nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The writing style makes it really hard to judge notability and the reference format makes it hard to judge quality. I tried helping the main author with similar articles but (excuse if I misunderstand intent) but it seems that they believe quantity of references and pieces of information will somehow push this article to
  WP:GNG. The prose does not make a case for notability and I will need a bit more time to examine the references before I vote.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

FWIW, an earlier article on him was speedily deleted.Mdtemp (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability Established

Notability author this is very referenced and a good article Author of significant book(s) on their style; - e.g. a book that is recommended study for the art (e.g. by an organisation they do not lead) or by someone who is an artist from a different style and/or school, but beware vanity press. Yes four books
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability#Schools_and_organisations
Note: unless the art/style is notable, a school or organisation teaching it is unlikely to be. Hence these criteria are similar. Criteria supporting notability Subject of an independent article/documentary: see above, and consider if it was the style/art and the school/organisation was an example. yes
Long, externally verifiable history Yes
Large number of students yes between 4000 and 5000 in 1974
Regular or large competitive successes in inter-school/ organisation tournaments where the style is notable.n/a
Multiple wide spread sites: an organisation 2 or 3 in a 30 mile radius is a lot less likely to be notable than one with 30 schools in different countries. These are the extremes but illustrate the point. yes multiple states
CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a school or an organization. As far as being a notable author, what has he written about his style that is recommended by those not connected to him?Mdtemp (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHe was the a pioneer in the field by being the first franchiser of martial arts schools. He is similiar in notability to Tiger Schulmann CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments still no vote. All that tells me is that the Tiger article has its own problems and may need a visit. The franchising of Martial arts schools was (is?) an American phenomenon and being the first to do so in a large way has some claim to notability (notoriety). I would like to see that backed up by good (clearly formatted) references.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in one of the references it says he had 3 schools in NYC and 8 others. I wouldn't say that's franchising in a large way, but your view may be different.Mdtemp (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither would I which is why I asked for references backing up the statement.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found nothing to show he meets any of notability criteria for martial artists. However, I still haven't decided about whether or not he meets
  WP:GNG. I've looked at a number, but not all, of the sources listed in the article. I found some that don't even mention him, but most are passing mentions or things like lists of schools. Given his legal problems, there may be enough coverage to pass GNG, but I haven't had the time to do enough research. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment Papaursa [1], [2], and [3] CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More passing mentions.Mdtemp (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Life Magazine [4], Black Belt Magazine full article about him. [5], New York Magazine section on him. [6] CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not mentioned on the Life cover, the BB article is about martial arts by mail marketing, and the New York article is a list of dojos. Nothing to show significant coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MDTemp, he qualifies on General Notability Guideline. He is an author, owner of the first franchise of martial arts schools, and there is significant coverage of him. By martial arts schools qualifications he fully qualifies. Take a look at martial arts schools. There are significant coverage of him in many areas. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He definitely doesn't qualify as a notable martial artist. I also haven't seen the coverage necessary to convince me he meets GNG. I see lots of passing mentions and some coverage of his stock mail fraud case (

WP:BLP1E), but not multiple examples of significant independent coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment The founder of the first franchise martial arts school in the United States makes him notable. His organization certainly qualifies him more than American Top Team, Brazilian Top Team, Evolve MMA, and Tiger Schulmann's MMA. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I finally got the time to search for sources for Mackey. I did a google search on his name and judo and went through every hit listed on the first 8 pages of results. My conclusion is that there is not enough significant independent coverage to show he meets
  WP:GNG. There's no doubt there's a number of passing mentions, but I don't believe that's enough for WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete The Life "article" (2 paragraphs) is more about judo than Mackey. Even if you consider it significant, GNG requires multiple sources and I don't see them. I do like the little kid throwing the instructor through the air--totally unrealistic but in keeping with the views of martial arts at the time. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am named in a Time article on the martial arts. Made my day when it came out but it doesn't make me notable. Passing mentions are just that.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alright, I will state the case

1. The first to establish the franchise system of martial arts in america
2. school in 3 states
3. responsible for the teaching of over 4000 students.
4. Helped to establish martial arts throughout the East Coast by bringing in from Asia many noted instructors and making them instructors at his schools.
5. the sheer number of passing mentions in numerous books, black belt magazine, magazines, show GNG. The listing is well over 50.
6. the author of at least 4 books.
7. now if you look at
   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability#Schools_and_organisations
His organization, of which he was the owner would qualify. Possibly maybe create a page about Judo, Inc and redirect Jerome Mackey to it. Since his organization fully qualifies. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI just created page if you believe redirect is a better idea. Jerome Mackey's Judo Inc. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just crossed through your second keep vote. Lots of passing mentions still don't make significant coverage. Nothing to show he's notable as an author. Nothing shows he was the first to franchise schools and arguably his chain wasn't that big--if all of the dojos combined had only 4000 students in their history. I know individual schools that have had more students than that. Finally there's even less coverage about Judo, Inc. than there is of Mackey himself. Papaursa (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Papursa, This was over a 15 year period and when martial arts was confined to adults. This was before martial arts became martial arts schools became inundated with children. Additionally, there are numerous sources that state he was the first to franchise martial arts in America. The numerous sources are in the article! CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you mentioned indicated he was all about teaching children and none of the sources say he was the first, just among the earliest. In addition, as mentioned earlier in the discussion, there's no indication he franchised in a major way. Papaursa (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like the article. 24.103.234.74 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I like the articke . Highly referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.108.64

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

• Keep would seem to pass WP:GNG from the amount of sources. User:Mdtemp did you notify article creator? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the keep arguments appear to be based on

WP:GOOGLEHITS, neither of which is a valid reason for keeping an article. No one is pointing out significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Doesn't appear to have the sources to meet GNG or the achievements to meet MANOTE. Besides the author, no one has put up a valid argument for keeping and the author hasn't proved his case. Jakejr (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jerome was featured in an article in The New Yorker.[8] Jerome was the subject of an article in Life Magazine [54] and another time in the same magazine [55], an article in the Readers Digest , an article in the New York Sunday News, Multiple Mentions in Black belt Magazine in different years including August 1969, is a martial arts author, and he pioneered the franchise system in martial arts, and more! CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I don't think there's enough to show he meets
  WP:MANOTE. The article on Judo Inc should definitely be deleted. Astudent0 (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment HE has served as a pioneer of the franchise martial arts in the United States, multiple mentions in black belt magazine, an author of multiple books on martial arts, taught over 5000 students, across multiple states, in the readers digest, life magazine, and sports illustrated. This is

WP:MANOTE is a guide not law. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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.