Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zumba Fitness


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Zumba Fitness

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability, we already have an article on Zumba. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep how does the fact we have a Zumba article mean we shouldn't have an article for a video game based on Zumba? SNS (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect to Zumba - As stated by Dougweller, we already have article about Zumba and the notability of the game as an entity on its own is debatable, so suggest content is merged into the main Zumba article and this one made into a redirect. Crazy-dancing (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment if you think there should be a section on Zumba Fitness in the Zumba article, then why not vote for "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of "Delete"? SNS (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * DoneCrazy-dancing (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether rightly or wrongly, we have a very strong precedent that every widely-released in stores commercial video game gets an article. This seems notable enough to me anyway.  I have removed the song list, which even the article admitted was just a rumour. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It hasn't been released. And your argument seems to have no guideline basis. These 'precedent without any guideline' arguments should carry no weight, they just accumulate decisions grounded on nothing but earlier ones done when our guidelines were laxer. Rewrite the guidelines first, meanwhile use the ones we have. Why should something (not saying this is a case) which is widely released but hardly sells be considered notable enough for an article? Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per sources found at a more specific Google search. IGN, GameSpot, Spike, Destructoid, etc.  And the four listed provide previews and not merely a "bio" page. Sources are reliable and provide enough coverage.  Tag the article for maintenance and keep. --Teancum (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Infectious"? Hardly NPOV. Redirect it to Zumba and be done. I believe that it's notable, but that doesn't mean the article we have is useful. If someone wants to come along and write (from scratch) an NPOV article someday, that'd be fine, but there's nothing there now worth keeping. Vectro (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep else Merge what's left into Zumba. -- &oelig; &trade; 12:05, 10 August 2010 (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.