Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P90X

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Concerns have been partly addressed, and the rest doesn't warrant deletion. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P90X

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An IP who inserted a {{db-spam}} on this article has self-reverted. He shouldn't have: the article is 100% promotional, and the references, numerous as they are, are all trivial. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have done a major re-write...not that I have any particular interest in the subject, but see if it is more acceptable now. Frmatt (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Yeah, the article has a very positive POV, but there is substantial coverage in the references cited from CNN and the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Being promoted on infomercials is not a barrier to notability. Getting coverage in mainstream media establishes notability, but I would like more independent sources like those two. The others are a bit thin as independent and substantial sourcing. There is usually a downside to exercise doodads promoted on TV. Most wind up pushed out of the way. If any stories address those problems it should be included. (At least the Nordic Trak is a great place to hang clothes!). WP:NPOV is to be achieved by editing, not deletion. Edison (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough after a review of GNews, haven't been able to find a single dissatisfied person. Main sources are reputable and semi-reputable (campus newspapers), but no negative reviews about this product. Maybe the NPOV isn't actually NPOV, and actually reflects the response of consumers? Frmatt (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can this even be considered for Afd. There are notable sources about a notable exercise program. Please check the google news archives and notice that the article receives 2000 views a day which is 2+ orders of magnitude higher than most wikipedia articles. Everything I wrote provides good information about the program and if you find more substantial information about p90x regardless of what it is please give interested people more information instead of less. I see no reason for taking off my freely licensed commons image or the exercise table. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information here as all of the information I provided was relevant to the program. If you are craving a harsh criticism section to "balance out" the article please try to find substantiated sources for it as I was unable.

Andman8 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot find a policy or guideline which says article are kept or deleted based on number of views. I do not take an above average number of views of the Wikipedia article as a legitimate "Keep" reason any more than noting a small number of views would be grounds for deletion. What statistic did you use to support the claim that2000 views per day is "2 orders of magnitude" greater than the average article? Edison (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a metric to look into the popularity of an article, not any of its merits good or bad. I like pooling information on to wikipedia so others can be informed better on a subject. I grabbed an FA an random [1] which has 50 views a day comparatively. I feel since we are talking about notability, the popularity of the article should be looked at in conjunction with google news archives sources to determine the notability of a given topic. A lot of people want information about the program and as there are credible sources to back it up I really wouldn't want this information lost seeing as I volunteered a lot of my time finding and pooling the information on wikipedia for others to get benefit from. Andman8 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just came across this looking for more information on the program. Article definitely needs some major improvements, but shouldn't be deleted. Cmiych (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.