Talk:Power Plate

Hi, I do not think this piece warrants speedy deletion. It is as legitamate as a piece on treadmills, rowing machines or any other piece of exercise equipment. I do not think it reads as an advert.

I just heard about this product today, searched wikipedia for some info on it, found nothing, and created a page hoping that others would update it and that I would learn more. All of the claims of benefits of the machine are listed as such, and criticisms are provided.

I can not see how this piece is any worse than other articles on other pieces of exercise equipment. I feel that if people dislike what I wrote it makes more sense to edit the page than delete it.

Here is a link to the page on the stairmaster, which is no different to this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairmaster

Daviegold (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously this article needs a lot of neutral input (NPOV). I found lots of advertising, unsupported statements both pro and against it. Also some inflammatory statement. This is not helping Wikipedia's reputation, nor Power-Plate nor the reputation of the the vibration training industry, nor the reputation of those against it. In other words it needs a lot of rework.--Gciriani (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

scientific studies
Any scientific studies supporting this technology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.115.156.67 (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)