Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Push–pull workout


 * 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 but probably merge. Discussion of a merger can continue on article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Push–pull workout

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Topic does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. This is a basic bodybuilding training theory that can be summarized in 5 words (much like 5x5 or 10 sets of 10 programs).  Quar te t  20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Dicdef at best, Neologism/nonsense at worst -Drdisque (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Procedural Keep : AfD is not to propose merges. Plus, there is plenty of books links, among which a couple of medicine books. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note:The nom has now removed the merge request I was referring above (see diff. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom (merge suggestion aside). Borderline notable bodybuilding training theory with a few Google book hits that are passing mentions and whole lot of self published website hits. --Yankees76 (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We have about a dozen books treating the subject in some respect. It's quite more than "borderline notability": it passes well WP:GNG. I would endorse a merge, but for sure the subject is notable. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A few book hits establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Because an old time bodybuilder and a few "fitness for dummies" books devote a couple of paragraphs to it, does not make it notable. This coverage isn't really significant and not significant enough for a standalone article. Any article on this subject would probably end up reading like an instruction manual. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We have the following book titles: Exercise in rehabilitation medicine, Spinal cord injury:management and rehabilitiation, Fitness programming and physical disability, among others. It doesn't seem a random thing made up one day by a bodybuilder, it seems consistently used in the field's literature. To say that "would probably end up like an instruction manual" is kind of a unproven prediction and prediction for prediction,for example, there could be coverage of benefits of such exercise, etc. -for example, its use in physical disability is interesting in itself and surely not manual stuff. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We have no way of seeing the depth of coverage in those books. Is there a chapter? A sentence? A paragraph? Again, this is not significant coverage worthy of a standalone article. I'd propose a new article be created that has numerous split routine workout methods that are similar but have subtle differences (Push/Pull, Upper/Lower, etc. etc.) That's all this is one split-routine approach to training. --Yankees76 (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, coverage is of a few paragraphs where accessible. Anyway it seems to indicate the subject has some notability -it has been covered by independent RS several times.
 * I agree with you that a merged article would be better, but if you're going to propose to merge articles together, you're not proposing deletion -because at worst the article would become a redirect. The article is better to stay until its content is merged, I'd say. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. A merge to an appropriate target (work-out methodologies?) would be fine too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge to a weight training article. This just appears to be another name for it.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term gets an obscene amount of googlehits, which have to be sifted for its reliable sources.-- Pink Bull  01:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I wouldn't have thought it, but the refs are sufficient for notability    DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 12 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.