Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This debate is evidently not a deleting one, even if I lob some sand at Dpbsmith. Some related comments can be found in my closure statement for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks Kubik (second nomination). -Splash^talk 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaur Training

NN, probable vanity; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks Kubik (second nomination) -- FRCP11 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because of NN:

• Ken Leistner See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Leistner.
• Weak keep. Puny, weakling, skinny-scarecrow keep. Comments follow: Dpbsmith (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Google Books search on exact phrase "dinosaur training" gives five hits: three irrelevant, one inaccessible. However, the first hit is Ironman Magazine (2000). Ironman's Ultimate Guide To Building Muscle Mass. McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 0809228130. p. 215: "Dinosaur training is all about heavy poundages and working hard..." The chapter is by Brooks Kubik. However, the fact that it appears in a print book by a legitimate publisher, under the auspices what I believe to be a legitimate physical-culture magazine, gives some credibility to its being a recognized concept. (By the way, a single hit in Google Books is not negligible, though I'd rather see half-a-dozen to a dozen. For comparison, exact phrase "Charles Atlas" gets 1200 hits in 100 books).

Re vanity: both this article and Brooks Kubik were created by User:Tjic. Based on his user page and other contributions, I would be very surprised if Tjic were Brooks Kubik himself or even a close associate, and these contributions and his other contributions does not follow the typical pattern of the pitbull self-promoter who thinks he can use Wikipedia for free advertising or building website traffic. Furthermore, the original Tjic text as well as subsequent edits are completely free from promotional or hucksterish language. So, I don't see vanity, though I do see a question of how recognized and important this is in the muscle-building community. (To which I don't belong).

Hmmm... Google Groups [1] gets 194 hits, borderline. I like Groups because it's less influenced by "search engine optimization" and other techniques for inflating web hits; under ordinary circumstances, Groups gets 1/4 to 1/10 the number of hit as a web search. On the face of it, when I read the content of the Group hits suggest that it is a real method, with some degree of real interest, but not very famous or well-known. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Ok, not vanity. But non-notable chapter in non-notable book doesn't add up to notability. -- FRCP11 13:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I used the word "borderline." Here's yet another case of "borderline:" I'm not sure how to link this, but go to www.a9.com, select only "books", and type "brooks d. kubik" in quotations. You get the out-of-print book, the Ironman book... and allusions to Kubik by two other strength-training authors. Typing in "brooks kubik" (no d.) yields three different mentions by other writers. In other words, a handful of strength-training authors have mentioned his name in print. Tell you what: I'll change "weak keep" to something weaker. If someone kicks sand in my face I'll probably cave in altogether. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom for lack of notability. -- Kicking222 19:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dr Zak 13:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete seems real enough but fairly marginal. If some heavily muscled individual calls to the door with a testimonial I will of course change my vote. Dlyons493 Talk 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "Dinosaur Training" is fairly well known in strength training circles. I thought part of the goal of Wikipedia was to serve as a learning tool, but the standard here seems to be "non-notable, because I haven't heard of it". Does one have to be as well-known as Charles Atlas to merit an entry? And calling the book that cited Dinosaur Training non-notable seems rather weak; it was published by McGraw-Hill - not exactly self-published. Dsreyn 00:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why was the AfD for Ken Leistner pointing here? Is this a package deal - Dinosaur Training and Leistner sink or swim together? Dsreyn 00:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The AfD for Leistner was pointing here per WP:AFD Section 6 for related articles. If you want to argue that one meets Wikipedia notability criteria and one doesn't and that they should be split up, you're welcome to split them up. I was trying to save time, because Dinosaur Training should've been included in the Brooks Kubik AfD. -- FRCP11 01:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have split the two. Saving time seems like a poor reason to combine them; Leistner and Dinosaur Training aren't directly linked (Kubik and Dinosaur Training would've been a more reasonable pairing). Dsreyn 02:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, appears somewhat notable in the field. And how else are you going to get them to use the litter box? Smerdis of Tlön 16:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a relevant form of training and has followers, it's part of old-time strength-training at least. Tyciol 21:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per my reasoning and comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks Kubik (second nomination) MCB 02:13, 29 May 2006 (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.