Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galileo (vibration training)


 * 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. listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Galileo (vibration training)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An extensive article about a non-notable piece of exercise equipment. The impressive list of references has to do with the medical practice--not with the equipment the subject of the article. Many of the refs are taken from Whole body vibration, some refs published well before the device was even introduced. The history of this article can be found in Galileo (Vibration Training), prior to the cut-and-paste move. Delete. Owen&times; &#9742;  19:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact this machine was the first of its kind (the first whole body vibration training device) and all the articles listed (apart from the ones before 1998) are in fact done with this specific device (please have a closer look not only to the abstracts and see which devices/products have actually been used in the listed publications). This shows the interest of research in this field of training technology as well as in this specific device. Other vibration training devices (working on a different motion pattern) are listed already in Wikipedia (see e.g. Power-Plate).

According to WP:CORP: ''A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.''

As discussed above this specific device has been topic of somewhat of 80 studies listed in PubMed alone since 1998. It appears to me that this is a significant coverage of secondary sources and as peer reviewed publications they can be considered as reliable and independent. Hence the articles appears to me wo be within the guidelines of Wikipedia.

The term non-notable in this context seems not appropriate especially since much less well documented systems are listed in Wikipedia Power-Plate. However if this article should be removed the other article needs be removed as well (Power-Plate).

Do not Delete User:Leo013 &#9742;  17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I spot-checked a couple references and they did indeed use the Galileo. Not going to wade through them all but I think it's safe to assume good faith here. Leo013, can you provide evidence that it is the first device of its kind? The statement to that effect in the article should be cited. It would definitely help establish notability.Gruntler (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Answer: If you read websites of many WBV training devices and also quite a few publications imply that in deed WBV was supposed to be invented by Russians. However as listed in the history section of the Galileo article this is not true at all. There are no publications at all indicating that a device like today's WBV training devices existed before 1996. What existed before 1996 was external stimulation of isolated parts of the body, but not a systematically stimulating device where the user stands on the machine and the today’s used frequency range and amplitude range let alone the side alternation of the Galileo device was used. There is a big difference in the effects between external stimulation and systematic stimulation – the systematic stimulation stimulates the complete muscle chain in a close to physiologic motion pattern – especially the side alternation mimicking the human gait (certainly without the swinging phase – but nevertheless close to human gait). This has been the basis for the current Whole Body Vibration Training devices with a growing number of manufacturers and lately a wave of cheap products made in China. The external stimulation on the other hand is known in literature as Biomechanical Stimulation (BMS) and there are plenty of publications in this field as well - but as I tried to explain - it is quite different approach and is not as widely used and known as WBV. I’ve been through a few hundred publications so far but couldn’t find any proof at all for this 'Russian tale'. Also I couldn't find any publication before 1998 about a machine using this 'systematic' approach comparable with WBV devices. In my personal opinion this is purely marketing talk, since a device sells better if it was invented for Cosmonauts/Astronauts. In my opinion a prove is in fact needed for the claims like in the article about vibration training that WBV was supposed to be a Russian invention - there is no proof for this as far as I know, even though many repeated that nice tale it does not make it a solid fact. In addition the correct names as used in literature are not to be confused (like unfortunately done in many articles, also in Wikipedia) after all literature obviously to separate the different approaches by using those names: Nazarov e.g. did not experiment with WBV but with what he called Biomechanical Stimulation (there is even a Nazarov Institute which focuses on BMS ) and the origin for that was probably Biermanns 'cycloid vibration massage'. User:Leo013 (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 01:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep - It needs some cleanup to make it less of an advertisement but that aside I think the notability is established. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:27, 28 September 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.