Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Fitness


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity Fitness

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per WP:COMPANY. Also bordering on WP:SPAM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CORP.  Burner 0718  JibbaJabba!  06:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article looks fine to me. Seems like a large franchise. It has sources listed at the bottom too, and news reports. It doesn't seem like spam to me (it has been changed some, but even the first copy looked fine). Cynof  G  avuf 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - I created this article, I hope this request for deletion will be removed soon. Celebrity Fitness is indeed a large company. Look at the pages of other fitness companies on Wikipedia, Fitness First, 24 Hour Fitness, Gold's Gym, and one of Celebrity's local competitors in Asia California Fitness. Celebrity's page has more citations to third party sources and in particular compared to California Fitness a lot less statements without citation in need of them. I'd like to add more content to this page, for example the logo, but cannot as the article is still on probation and don't want to spend more time working on this if it is just going to be deleted. In short, WP:CORP is not accurate, it's a well documented company, and WP:SPAM I can understand when the phone numbers were up there, but the numbers have been removed. My goal as this pages creator is to make it the most informative, well-referenced page for a fitness center on Wikipedia. User:yes4us —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Notability not Asserted : number of world wide franchises alone is not notability and the sources seem to be on other topics or company related press releases. Who has noted this and for what? Equipment? Business methods? If you could explcitly state and cite notability that would help. Other stuff exists does not help, they may be deleted on further examination too. You could try to find a catagory in which this can become "inherently notable" - if you have licensed internal radio station ( like those AM stations you see mentioned on freeway for local construction alerts LOL) you may be able to make a legalistic argument for inclusion on that criterion. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is "asserted" (and proven) by the references to significant coverage in independent reliable sources in the article. There are more such sources available, such as, and . Phil Bridger (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The one article was just a "grand opening" story of apparently local interest but it did mention the rest of chain exists and something about an award in Men's Health magazine(see comment below). The other wasn't in English. I guess if you could explain why they are notable- what about them is highlighted in the articles- that would help. Explaining they opened a store or are on a lengthy list of ok gyms from a magazine soliciting ad money from gyms is questionable claim to notability. If someone else has noted their growth or popularity in more than glib ad or promotional material I guess that could be a claim to fame but all businesses have some growth and fluff coverage. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Kindly note that the Jakarta Post is a legitimate Indonesian periodical, Bernama is Malaysia's national news agency, The Star is one of Malaysia's most circulated daily papers, etc. Will continue to find sources to develop this article but as noted previously am hesitant to spend more time on this until I know it will be well spent. yes4us (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron  32  02:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Delete As per WP:COMPANY and fails notability --HighKing (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is this extended this long? This is clearly within guidelines. The only deletes have no explanation. Cynof  G  avuf 11:46, 8 November 2009 (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.