Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body for Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Body for Life

Body for Life was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Nothing encyclopaedic. This is just self-promotion and advertisement. AtonX 23:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep "Self-promotion"? Huh? I don't work for EAS. I work for Unisys, an IT services company. Check my user page. A lot of people have tried this program, and I think a lot more would like to see what it's all about. By your definition any page about any program, product or company should be deleted. Why do we still have pages about the Rational Unified Process, the iMac or McDonalds? GeorgeStepanek 00:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • You named it. It's just a product. For sale. It's not a notable cornerstone item in the history of computing, neither is it the world's largest chain of restaurants. AtonX 01:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, if you just wait a moment, you'll find that you don't need to buy a thing. I am in the process of describing all of its principles. One can also very reasonably argue that Body for Life is the most significant and widespread application of bodybuilding principles yet. GeorgeStepanek 01:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I have considered the page at 23:13, 18 Nov 2004 the way it was, as lacking notability, generality and promoting one of many dieting plans in your essay, rather than a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. You apparently take it as an attack against your person, which a vfd isn't. AtonX 02:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Routine appears to be popular enough (google estimates about 250,000 hits) to establish notability. Fire Star 02:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps an article on Popular diet and exercise regimes. CSTAR 02:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be some consensus that this is a useful article. Will change to keep if focus is changed to an instance of the category Popular diet and exercise regimes.CSTAR 18:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Changed to keep. However, article needs to be framed in the general category of diet and exercise regimes.CSTAR 21:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• keep, a decent article, could use a little NPOV possible. —siroχo 03:48, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete if not stripped of advertising: Quite notable, but this is an ad. It begins by telling us we can "dramatically change" our bodies, then gives us a whole regimen, then "And does it work, Troy? Yes and how!" kind of thing. Geogre 03:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Noted. Have added some opposing POVs. Please feel free to add more.GeorgeStepanek 04:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It's improving. Y'all keep working on it, and I'll keep checking. It's getting there, but I can't change my vote yet. Geogre 16:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent latest rewrite with balance. Keep now. Geogre 05:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Program with a substantial international following. I've done quite a bit of NPOV work and some cleanup. Samaritan 07:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 10:45, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup. Another notable diet/health thing. Not quite Atkins, but notable enough. --Improv 16:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:13, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs cleanup. DCEdwards1966 04:08, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Can you please clarify what you mean by "cleanup". I know that I need to finish the Exercise section, but I thought that Samaritan did an excellent job cleaning up the rest of the text. GeorgeStepanek 20:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Samaritan. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 16:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with RaD Man who agrees with Samaritan. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons stated by others that vote keep. --Dittaeva 20:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a great article and has good information which is precisely the reason I come to Wikipedia. Here, I get a dense burst of information without having to go to the effort of reading the book. This material now belongs in the media commons and should not be discarded (unless is a copyright violation). And here is the best part: if Body for Life has flaws, then knowledgeable Wikipedians will start to include some good dirt. Remember: even if originally made by a fan or promoter, Wikipedia articles also become a magnet for criticism. ... And best of all, I don't need to buy the book because the article is enough. So :-P there, you spamming promoters. WpZurp 17:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.