Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspension Training

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. Article is now referenced and no longer spam. --PeaceNT (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension Training

Despite a New York Times-linked article as a reference, this article is little more than a commercial for TRX. Unless someone wants to rewrite the article to focus solely on the exericse without hyping the corporate sponsor, I would have to say this WP:SPAM candidate needs to go. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Either delete it per WP:SPAM more of an ad then an informative article.--S_RX 23:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I added more content for suspension training, I have to leave TRX and fitness anywhere in it since they invented suspension training. Without it, it's like talking about greatest Olympian without mentioning Michael Phelps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantgrant (talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now the article veers into WP:OR territory. I am sorry, but in its current form this does not meet Wikipedia standards. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject appears to be Wiki-standard; it is the presentation that lets this down. Is there an objective review of this, from a sports physiology source, perhaps, that could be used to ground it in analysis rather than advertising language ? -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the criteria for speedy deletion of spam state: "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. " Yes, a fundamental re-write is needed, and therefore this falls under speedy deletion. TrulyBlue (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have developed this draft re-write of the article. Maybe this isn't the right forum, but does this look encylopedic? TrulyBlue (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current version is strongly inappropriate in tone. TrulyBlue's version is far superior; but the more neutrality you apply to the text, the more this looks like a generic trademark name for an exercise regimen that makes no particular claim of notability or strong differentiation from its competitors. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Cleanup - Sources can be found in the New York Times, The Times, Daily Mail and Military.com. I'll see what I can do to improve the quality of the article (I haven't seen the inside of a gym in years) but I'd argue that this passes both WP:V and WP:N. Gazi moff 14:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that The Guardian as well. Many thanks, Gazi moff 14:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment towards keep. I declined the speedy on this one, and added the NYT reference. I was going to continue to see if this was viable, but decided to go offline instead. Not to a gym, just to a different sitting position like most Wikipedians I presume. Gazimoff's references are very good, seem independent. Yes, this was added from a new editor, presumable a WP:COI editor, but I think it just might be notable. I very much like Trulyblue's draft more than this one, they can easily be merged. In fact, Trulyblue, be bold and do it! You are allowed to update the article while the debate runs. In fact, I just gutted the good faith WP:OR out of it, as it wasn't helping this debate at all. Keeper ǀ 76 15:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has some major issues with style, format, etc. However, there are no problems with notability or verifiability at all. The only "problem" (and it's definitely not an actual problem) is with an enthusiastic editor creating an article about a subject about which they seem to be truly passionate. This passion has led their writing to have a bit of an advertorial feel, but this can be easily fixed. Based upon these facts, I suggest keeping the article, and assisting in cleaning it up a bit. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: I moved the article to a more appropriate name, per the naming conventions at WP:MOS. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have updated with (I hope) a more NPOV version (with proponents and critics represented). Therefore the above comments may not still be relevant. I think it meets notability, given the number of google hits (OK, that's not exactly scientific, but it's been covered in various newspapers also). TrulyBlue (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any major problems with the article as it stands now; it certainly isn't an advertisement. GregorB (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one reference that linked to the TRX promotional page. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2008 (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.