Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitness Blender


 * 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. Arguments to keep the article point out coverage in major outlets. Arguments to delete point out that some of this coverage is via interviews. The discussion has not brought further clarity to this debate, so there does not appear to be clear consensus.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 19:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Fitness Blender

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fitness Blender

Run-of-the-mill digital content publisher. There are two problems with this article. First, an article should speak for itself and explain why the subject is notable, but this article does not. There is nothing in it that identifies the significant coverage by third parties that would support corporate notability. It simply says that the company exists. What little content there is reads like a brochure. Second, the references do not provide multiple significant coverage by reliable sources. The Wall Street Journal article is independent reliable coverage. The other three references are interviews, essentially copies of each other. However, references are necessary but not sufficient, and the article is not sufficient.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports,  and Washington. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - looks like subtle case of WP:PROMO.  ~XyNq tc 05:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Found one brief description of the company and how they are different, and a limited but notable discussion in a peer-reviewed journal  and head-to-head comparaison here  these and the sources above seem to be enough for notability. One strong source, these are weaker but still independent sources added with the other sources mentioned seem to give us notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be more of a promotional piece and will not likely stand he test of time.Adam.Sudo (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with the nominator, especially about the Seattle Times article, which I consider to be much more than an interview. That article is 38 paragraphs long and only a small percentage consists of quotations from the couple that run the company. I consider it significant coverage without a doubt. As for standing the test of time, they have already been in business for 14 years, so I do not understand that comment. In my view, the references in the article, taken as a whole, are sufficient to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep That is a beefy Seattle Times article which makes it notable, but even the two and half million youtube fans, now 6.6million, puts them in very top of influencer territory. That alone would make them notable.   scope_creep Talk  10:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This publisher's YouTube channel was the subject of an article in The Wall Street Journal, which described it as a "fitness empire."
 * Delete per nom. The Seattle Times article is not intellectually independent (as it is, of course, based on an interview); and the WSJ piece is only one source (while GNG requires multiple) and mildly even looks like a puff piece. Youtube views, like google hits, are not indicators of anything pertinent for determining notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When a vlog has 2.65million views which is about the same viewership as an episode of Eastenders, on the BBC in 2022, then they are notable.   scope_creep Talk  09:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Vlogs are user-made sources, so they do not indicate notability. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Do the peer-reviewed sources not satisfy notability requirements? Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2022 (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.