Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports Club/LA


 * 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.  Syn  ergy 00:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sports Club/LA
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article promotes a commercial establishment, and there is no significant content about the club. The three cited secondary sources only refer to trivialities, not anything about the subject of the article itself. Cbdorsett (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep as creator. Obviously notable.  Use google.  Nearly 500 hits in New York Times alone, six in wall street journal, 42 in LA Times 131 in USA Today, 368 in SF Crhonicle 6 in Time Magazine.  Many are entire articles dedicated to the chain or one of its  locations or activities.  The article is brand new - the silly tags appeared within 1 hour of creation, so of course it's not a complete article yet.  But a discussion of the club's founding, founders, number and geographic distribution of outlets, and early history, and a description of the genre of the club is obviously not spam.  These are the things that define a fitness club, and that you need to know for an encyclopedic understanding.  What else is the nominator looking for?  Gross income?  Color of carpet?  Square footage?  Lists of celebrity members?  Nom seems to be sour grapes over my IAR removal of a bogus db-spam; needs to learn WP:CORP and be more careful on new article patrol.Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one of the most notable fitness clubs in the entire United States.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of LA Fitness? There's only eleven of these "Sports Club/LA", per the article. Tan   &#124;   39  17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral (Wikidemon invited me here), but Wikidemon shouldn't have needed to remove the db-spam tag — I had already declined the speedy deletion, and it wasn't correct for Cbdorsett to restore it. Stifle (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, meeting WP:CORP. The first !vote by the creator is almost completely irrelevant - Google hits are not a good indicator of notability; the lifespan of the article is irrelevant, etc. I also agree the article is a bit spammy - that first paragraph could be fat-trimmed a bit. Overall, however, notability is present. Tan   &#124;   39  19:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (trimmed complaint about AfD nominations) Regarding the importance of using google or your other favorite search engine, see WT:AFD, WT:AFD, and WP:BEFORE. Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is established by reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article. Alansohn (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely notable, with plenty of third-party sources. --Aude (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2008 (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.