Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P90X (2nd nomination)

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 Subject is notable. Article needs improvement not deletion

P90X

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

Although there are numerous references this article is one big advert for a single product. It's all written from the product's POV and nothing negative, no criticism. There's even a blatant contravention of WP:HOWTO. I'm not sure how this could be rewritten as a full-blown article without it turning into an advert. A one paragraph mention with a few cherry-picked refs could possibly do it, but as it stands this should not be an encyclopaedia article. Predominantly written by BHealthy (talk · contribs) and a range of IPs, I wouldn't be surprised if WP:COI was an issue too. Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I can add my own two cents here: I didn't create this article, nor did I contribute the majority of information in it. I began editing it precisely because other users were complaining about its objectivity and lack of sources -- and I've put a lot of effort into dealing with those issues (as have several other contributors). At the same time, I've repeatedly requested that users with detailed criticisms of the article state them on the talk page, which for the most part they haven't done. And if anyone has "negative" or "critical" information about the topic, they haven't bothered adding it to the article itself. The fact is, this article has existed for almost a year and has been edited by dozens of users. I don't think anyone believes the notability of the topic is in doubt. (A quick search of Google News shows that P90X has been seriously discussed in the Chicago Sun-Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and CNN/Fortune magazine in the last two weeks alone.) Deleting an article merely because it discusses a commercial product seems entirely wrong to me. BHealthy (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page gets 3-4 thousand hits a day[1], which suggests to me the topic is notable. This is one of those things I hear about frequently despite having no interest in it. Probably the article needs some hacking down.--Milowent (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean. Fred, you've described in your nomination statement things that are wrong with a particular article (and I agree that it is poorly written for an encyclopedia), but make no case for deletion. "A one paragraph mention with a few...refs could possibly do it" is a plea for clean-up, and ironically "there are numerous references" is an actual assertion of notability. So clean it. (or implore interested parties to clean it - is there a wikiproject that could help?) This is the wrong forum for a discussion about cleaning up a notable article with a poor tone/advert languaged article. Keeper | 76 02:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hits don't matter much, but it's a well known workout system, that I think has enough notable coverage. Shadowjams (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; It is possible to have an article about a notable product without it being an advertisement. Fred the Oyster claims there is no criticism in the article; So add it, if you can find some that is properly sourced. Buck O'Nollege 08:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has some issues - one is that some editors try to turn it into a linkfarm: [2], [3], [4].Autarch (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does indeed have some issues, but that editors try to turn it into a link farm isn't one of them. Just delete the links. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the "link farm" criticism either... most of those examples were added by IP users with no other edits, and were removed immediately after they appeared. BHealthy (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - that the article requires cleanup is not a reason for deletion. The material is not in such a state that it is irredeemable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article I had no idea what the P90x was until reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.52.12 (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, unless it is re-written according to encyclopedic guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.212.229.166 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, This is nothing more than a ploy to market a product by adding an extra listing to Google a workout program does not need its own wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.115.129 (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, A workout product such as this does not need it's own page. Hundreds of these types of products are created every year. I think the best soloution would be for beahcbody to create its own page and have a portion about p90x included in what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.111.199 (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Clearly notable as can be seen from the large number of newspaper articles referencing the program. Does not read as an advert to me, nor a how-to. This seems to be a well-sourced description of a well-known work-out program. --Wicked247 (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2010 (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.