Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stott Pilates


 * 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Stott Pilates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

They may actually be notable, but this is essentially advertising.  DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The advertising mess can be fixed by axing it, but the company itself has many small mentions and interviews which pushes towards GNG. Salvageable articles should not be deleted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Comment "small mentions" and interviews that amount to PR are the sort of references that do not meet substantial independent coverage. There is a time a few years back when I would have defended articles like these, but I now think that based on keeping true to the purpose of an encyclopedia, the combination of borderline references & promotionalism is a reason for rejection. I no longer thing articles worth rewriting unless the notability is  more than borderline--there is simply too much promotionalism being submitted, and rejection, not rewriting, is the way to discourage it.   DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination provides no specific examples, contrary to WP:VAGUEWAVE, and so there is essentially no case to answer. Without specific criticisms, it would be difficult to rewrite, especially if this draft were no longer available for inspection.  The main thing that strikes me when I read the article is that it doesn't explain the origin of the name Stott. Warden (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I see Stott Pilates as simply a brand (a notable brand) of the parent corporation, in the same way that, for a few examples inside and outside the fitness industries, Jeep, Lexus, Acura, Sprite, Simply Orange, Fanta, Bally Total Fitness, and Bally Technologies are brands of their respective companies. Yes, the marketing-speak needs to be removed, but, in the Pilates 'industry,' Stott Pilates is one of the "giants," as noted by at least one trade publication: IDEA World Fitness Convention Includes MindBody Crowd, "Industry giant Merrithew Health & Fitness...", Teresa Bergen, Yogi Times, 2012. In the same way as there are the 'big three' auto manufacturers in the U.S., there are only about a single handful of Pilates methods and manufacturers in the world, and Stott Pilates is one of them. I'd be happy to take a stab at reworking the text into a neutral format, but I'd appreciate comments when I try. Trevor Jacques (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2013 (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.