Talk:Bodybuilding.com

Really, what the hell is this article?!
bodybuilding.com is most famous for spawning memes and troll threads that become popular far beyond the site itself. this is not reflected in this article whatsoever!!!

What the hell is this? Candidate for deletion!
This article should be deleted. BB.com is an irrelevant site trolled by losers. Nobody even knows it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.218.93 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Challenging prod
The article needs major cleanup and possible semi-protection from vandalism, but I'd prefer to list this on AFD as the website itself is arguably notable: --Muchness 13:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ranked 230 on Inc. Magazine's list of America's fastest-growing privately owned companies
 * Passing mentions in the New York Times and Washington Post,.
 * Very high Alexa and Big Boards rankings

Title of Article
Can anyone elaborate on why the article isn't called Bodybuilding.com?(Booyabazooka - I'm looking your way) Just so we're clear, Bodybuilding.com is the actual name of the company, not just a URL. Thanks. Yankees76 17:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll list this article at WP:RM now. --Muchness 17:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move to Bodybuilding.com. Joelito (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Body Building (website) → Bodybuilding.com – Requesting a move to the company's actual name per primary and secondary sources. --Muchness 17:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support. Kafziel 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - for obvious reasons - this is one case where it's not spam. Yankees76 20:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - this is much more clearly about the website with the extension. --Dhartung | Talk 07:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

CJ suicide
I was just wondering, the CJ or candy Junkie, suicide of the 19 year old Florida Male, who posted his suicide note on the fourm under misc at bodybuilding.com and people egged him on to take more 'xanax' to commit suicide. should this not be added to it, since they are entirely related? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.3.14 (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Its noteworthy enough and should be added. I was surprised it wasn't in the article. Additionally, there was a less significant (but still pretty large) meme that came out of those same forums involving pics of a girl taken from her myspace page. The thread was basically a bunch of people making fun of her because she wasn't very attractive. It went on for hundreds of pages. People from other forums came and registered just to join in, and it appeared on front page of reddit and a few other aggregate sites.--75.180.45.107 (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any independant third party reliable sources actually report on any of this?--Yankees76 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * CNN, at least. --JDCMAN (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone should add it then... --Yankees76 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Suspected tampering by company employees for PR management
An unreferenced changes were made to the article by User:206.207.84.3which is allocated to a Meridian Idaho ISP serving business accounts. Bodybuilding.com is based in Meridian, ID as well. Changes to information such as number of employees without reference(who else has info to this kind of info? ) and removing down playing unflattering comments makes me suspect this is Bodybuilding.com's work. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions to make the article's tone less promotional
I believe removal of the "Forum" section would help as its only purpose seemingly is to show how "important" the site is. Also, the information contained there, even if accurate and sourced, is so variable as to not serve a very encyclopedic purpose. Today's hot forum is tomorrow's dustbin...MySpace anyone? I would say the same of the sentence in the open about it being one of the Internet's "most trafficked Websites". I think it could also be removed without diminishing the article and it would make the article sound less "cheerleaderish". Comments?GBrady (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)