Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardgainer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per overriding policy WP:V. No-one disputes that the content is factually suspect and unverified. Sandstein 10:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hardgainer

Hardgainer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is very short with mostly uncited material. It's material is either factually incorrected or totally uncited and it is unlikely any new information will be added to this article in the future to improve it or ever could be added. This article could be merged into any number of numerous articles which contain the exact same information including Somatotype or Bodybuilding. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously since I nominated it, But since it's being re-listed I thought I'd re-vote just to make sure. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Transwiki & Stub it Commonly used term, but the article is factually suspect. Being associated with weight-lifting and body-building for almost three years now, I can vouch for the fact that this blanket term is misleading, and the article reflects that confusion. Perhaps it could merit a proper article in future. At this point it might be better to transwiki it to dictionary and stub the article down to the verifiable facts.xC | ☎ 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep? What's the difference between a "Hard gainer" and an "Ectomorph"? Wikidudeman (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, all ectomorphs are not hardgainers, while all hardgainers are not hardgainers simply because they are ectomorphs. Secondly, one term refers to the body type, whereas the other refers to lack of progress in terms of building muscle size/strength. Thirdly, hardgainers are usually products of counter-productive habits and lack of motivation, whereas being ectomorphic is merely the product of genetics. Lastly, I'd just like to point out that both terms are quite subjective, ie. you may or may not agree with what I said above, but thats what I believe and given the vague definitions of both, it seems both of us may be rightxC | ☎ 10:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to bodybuilding. It would be better suited as 2 lines, then as an article that lacks credible sources, and is extremely speculative. the_undertow talk 08:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to bodybuilding per Undertow, unless anyone can expand the article with more reliable sources, in which case I'll go for weak keep.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:47, 14 July 2007 (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.