Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RPM (Les Mills Fitness Program)

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 except BodyPump. Requests for reliable outside sources to establish notability have not been answered. I'll close BodyPump as No consensus since the quality of the sourced research article has not been discussed, but it can be renominated for AfD if question about notability remain. ~ trialsanderrors 05:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPM (Les Mills Fitness Program)

RPM (Les Mills Fitness Program) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable fitness programs. One of these was tagged for speedy deletion, but since "nn-program" isn't a speedy criterion and there's a bunch of these articles, I figured I'd bring them all here for ultimate decision. Also being nominated are:

• BodyPump
• BodyStep
• BodyCombat
• BodyAttack
• BodyJam
• BodyBalance

These are all programs under the Les_Mills_International fitness plan. With such little content in them, I don't believe they're mergable. Metros232 14:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this spam. What is not spam, is original research. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All should be deleted as mere advertisement. No evidence of being notable. Deli nk 16:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: no !vote yet, but I can at least that these programs are quite widely used: I know of different fitness centra in Belgium where the "teachers" (how do you call these) have followed courses in BdyJam and so on in the Netherlands to be able (and certified) to give classes in Bodyjam and so on. So it exists, is used (internationally), ... but is it verifiable? No idea yet, so no opinion yet either. Fram 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I am the one that put the pages up less than 24 hours ago, and I'm just coming back to add further content, including pictures further information. There is some information about the Les Mills programs at http://www.lesmills.com, and forums such as http://www.lesmillstalk.com and http://www.groupfitness.org all of which are grassroots communities of people that do a series of fitness class and like to talk about them. That they are created a fitness program that comes out of New Zealand and which are done in 55 countries by 4 million participants doesn't make the "Body" series of fitness programs notable? Beardoc 03:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe you, but to keep this article according to the Wikipedia policies, we need WP:V sources which are reliable, peer-reviewed and independent. Info by the company doesn't count (not independent), info by forums and so on doesn't count either (not reliable, because not peer-reviewed). What we need is articles published in independent magazines (so no advertorials or magazines owned by Les Mills or small magazines by fitness centra that have a Les Mills program), something like "Fitness International" or "Sport and Fitness" something similar (no idea if it exists, just trying to give an impression). If such general magazines on a sport / lifestyle spend (lare) articles on Les Mills and on the different programs, then they are worth keeping. If no one can give us such sources (preferably but not necessarily online), then we have to delete it. Fram 06:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your input Fram - however, I don't see that this particular series of entries is should have the official guidelines apply to it, when with things like Hopkin Green Frog or I am not Canadian can exist in Wikipedia with only links to various websites and blogs (which WP:V says is not acceptable. Other entries seem to be allowed to continue, but get tagged with the "needs citations" tag. Why shouldn't these entries be allowed that as well, rather than getting deleted? Also, if I can find research that is relevant, then it can stay, right? if that's the case, then BodyPump cites research - why can it not stay? Beardoc 12:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Guy's reasoning above. --SunStar Net 12:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This sport is even known here in Lebanon. I found the listing of the songs in each version very useful. Anybody practicing this fitness program would appreciate such information. I tend to agree about the lack of studies even though I consider certain online ones to be legitimate (site history) Fact about fitness . In either case I would suggest some amendment especially for the parts with unproven claims

  endurance can be built up in various muscle groups with more accuracy.

  . This is a highly spread fitness program and wikipedia does need an entry about it. -- User:Hedgy102 12:04 29 November 2006 (GMT+02:00) — Hedgy102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep This information is useful for people doing research for fitness programs. Agree however that more research needs to be added so that this does not become Advertisement or Spam. This is similar to other Wiki entries such as Taebo, etc and is unique enough to warrant an entry. Citing reviews based on differences and similarities in different locations might also prove useful. --User:Juce 12:12, 29 November 2006 (EST) — Juce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.