Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodypump

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 Delete. enochlau (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodypump

Advertising essentially the same as Bodybalance. Made by the same user, Pipera. jnothman ^talk 07:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete looks like advertising Pogoman 07:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not advertising it it telling people about Bodypump I have not placed any advertsing on the entry?

There are numerous enteries for pop groups - IBM - Microsoft etc... on this site is that not advertsing?

pipera

• Pipera, IBM and Microsoft are already well-known and their articles draw on written sources by outside sources not related to them. You appear to be trying to promote the blog to get something that's not known yet in the spotlight. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Re-create when same size as IBM. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. Cyberevil 13:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. --Thephotoman 14:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep is barely promotional; if anything is promotional of a web log. Seems to be somewhat notable internationally, but wish Pipera could supply me with particular sources. jnothman ^talk 01:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep: I think advertising should be allowed if some kind of technology-based filtering could let readers filter it out themselves-- Marvin147 10:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know what that means. And it doesn't say anything about the merits of the article or its topic itself. And Wikipedia:About is quite certain we are builting an encyclopedia and NOT an ad directory. Not that I oppose your vote, but your reasoning seems strange. jnothman ^talk 10:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is encyclopedic. If it were not describing an actual product for sale today, it would be similar to the cubit. Worthy to future historians? Perhaps, but how can we judge? -- Marvin147 10:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. TestPilot 05:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. I'd also advise Marvin147 (talk · contribs) to stop inserting the same idea about "technology-based filtering" in every advertising AfD. It serves no purpose. AfD is not the place for discussions of policy, and such out-of-place "proposals" may be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:07, 6 January 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.