Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planking

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 delete (but see my full comment at the bottom of the page). —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planking

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

Lacks significant coverage, only references included are primary sources or a single reference to a reliable source. Contested prod. Google searches on the title bring up cooking or building material hits only. RadioFan (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very recent Australian fad, and unless multiple independent reliable sources discuss it in depth, the article should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not talk about the importance or notability of the subject.—C45207 | Talk 05:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thought by the title that this was about the exercise planking. If anybody wanted to make an article about that then that would be notable, and this current info could probably be mentioned in such an article.AerobicFox (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exercise does appear to be notable; it's covering in some non-health news sites. Maybe this article can be converted like you stated.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked all ten Google hits in the search you link to, and they don't seem to me to come anywhere near establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

try checking google books instead. Here are a couple thousand books that recommend planking. I can personally attest to the commonality of this exercise as it has been covered on my cross country team, in martial arts, in yoga, in core strength classes and in pilates that I have done. It is an extremely common exercise with dozens of variations and the existence of all these books calling it one of the best ab exercises should confirm notability.AerobicFox (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article with no useful content and no evidence of notability. Really no more than a dictionary definition. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability, appears to be a transitory fad, most likely to be something someone made up in college one day. MLA (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refs cited do not appear to establish notability. Edison (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I have gone ahead and changed the article from being about the Australian fad to being about the popular isometric exercise. There are far more sources that can be used to further expand and elaborate the current subject of the article which I will start adding in coming days. I'm recommending closing this as the subject of the original AfD(the Australian fad) is no longer the subject of the article.AerobicFox (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new article looks better than the one up for AFD, but perhaps rather than deleting the article being discussed and replacing it with another of the same name about a different subject, you should have created Planking (exercise), and allowed the AFD to continue. Alternatively, someone could have done a "Snowball delete" and you could have then created your new article. Edison (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin. Looking at the course of discussion here and what's happened at the article, here's what I've done.

I am closing the AfD, as it relates to the article about the Australian fad, as a delete under the snowball clause.
I have assessed Aerobic Fox's new article and determined that it overlaps with Plank (exercise). As a result, I've merged the content there.

Had there not already been an article on the plank, this AfD would have ended with the unusual outcome of a delete result and an article immediately existing at the same title. I want to make clear that there was a massive topic shift, so there's a hard split: the edits that relate to the one topic were deleted, but the edits that relate to a second one were not. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2011 (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.