Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BodyPump


 * 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.  

The result was keep. The advertizing aspect is not so blatant to qualify for speedy, so the issue shifts to notability, where the arguments for keep are stronger.-- Kubigula (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

BodyPump

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Blatant advertising. Corvus cornix talk  08:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions.   —Littleteddy (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. 'Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles can be speedily deleted by tagging the articles with db-spam.' (from WP:ADVERT). Littleteddy (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This one's been deleted before: . Then as if by magic it returned. It remains advertising now as it was then. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate notability and sources. Seems to be as distinctive as Bikram yoga or Pilates.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete - In the article’s current state it is SPAM. Until rewritten  Delete Shoessss |  Chat  11:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how this could be rewritten in a more NPOV way as the article already seems quite matter-of-fact with no obvious hype. Please give an example of how you would like this rewritten and explain how this rewriting is to be done when the article is deleted.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * keep I know the (TM) makes it look annoyingly promotional, but it has 420,000 hits on google (I could find the number of unique hits but I keep flicking through and still haven't come to the end...and I'm already supposed to be out the door.  Has no-one looked for sources before commenting?  a BBC website.  It is held by gyms run by local councils in the UK, so is accessable and well known   (It claims to have research behind it- this could be looked up this is just to show that it's available at many places.  Could we reduce to a stub and then I will work on it or someone else, who like me is not associated with BodyPump(tm) :) Merkinsmum  13:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Comment – I have checked the sources you listed and they are promotional websites. Come on, that does not make this article “Noteable”.  Spam is still Spam no matter how many advertisements are out there.  To reference Colonel Warden  comments; “…I'm not seeing how this could be rewritten in a more NPOV.”   That is just my point,  SPAM be gone. Shoessss |  Chat  13:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the BBC cite does not seem to be an advertisement and, as a source, is as reliable as they come. My impression is that you are just objecting to the fact that this is a commercial product.  This is not sufficient grounds for deletion as commercial products are covered here when sufficiently notable.  See Porsche, iPhone, Windows Vista, etc.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have amended the article per Manual of Style (trademarks). Colonel Warden (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rewrite Even though it appears to be spam, it has enough reliable sources to prove its notability. The article could use some major NPOV fixing by the way due to the tone of the article. Pre  ston  H  17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Trim Spamminess and Merge to Les Mills International.  Not sure its notable on its own.  Although as a segment of the firm's activities, it might be.  If you axe some of the spam you would probably have a concise section that could fit into that article.Montco (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rewrite There's a worldwide following for the program, so it's socially relevant FWIW. I understand the desire to merge under Les Mills International, but many folks aren't aware of that association.  If the spaminess mentioned earlier can be removed to everyone's satisfaction then hopefully it can be kept as a stand-alone topic.  (Craig Warman)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.89.157 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No-one will know of Les thingy round here, but bodypump is on at most leisure centres in the UK. Wikipedia policy is to use the name by which something is commonly known to the majority of the public. And no, the BBC is not a promotional website, nor are local council government websites owned or paid by bodypump. Merkinsmum  01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.