Talk:IronMind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] from VfD:

Advertising. --BM 00:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did link several sources on their website, which can be removed if there is a consensus that such links are inappropriate. I did in, addition, put "Request a catalog" on the bottom (really because I love their catalog and many others have said the same), which can also be taken out if necessary. However, I am in no way affiliated with IronMind, other than being a happy customer, and they are certainly a notable organization - the long list of institutions that testify to using their products [1] should be sufficient affirmation of that. They really do fill a niche by offering unique and well-designed products to assist in strength training. Ground 00:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Further, the statement They are renowned by weightlifters for their innovation, product quality and customer service is factual and representative of a majority viewpoint; it is part of the reason the company is notable. Ground 00:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've reworded the article to make it (IMO) less effusive, and removed the "Request a catalog" link. Ground 01:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But you haven't removed the "renowned" sentence. How do you know this statement is true? What is the source for it? If it is based on your personal assessment of "weightlifter opinion", based on what other weightlifters have said to you, that is unverified and unverifiable original research and is not admissable. Statements made in the Wikipedia must be based on verifiable public sources, nor personal impressions. For example, if a recognized journalistic source about weightlifting has surveyed weightlifter opinion regarding the quality, innovativeness, reputation for customer support, etc, and that is the finding, then you can report the finding and state the source. Otherwise, it is indistinguishable from the P.R. puffery of the company, and is no better because you don't work for them. --BM 02:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've eliminated the original research. Ground 15:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, well known business, peerless in the relm of handgrip sales. Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. But Wikipedia is not a product catalog, a shopping guide, or a place for testimonials about consumer products. --BM 00:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. In what way is that article a product catalog or shopping guide? I see no products. It's just an average company info page. Dan100 09:53, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep de-POVed version, but it would be nice to have some external references like a magazine article about the products or something discussing major companies in the field. Kappa 17:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. An article about a company is not necessarily advertising, or we'd have to delete Pepsi too. And if they publish a journal that makes them notable enough for me. Bryan 19:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this article as the company's notability exceeds Wikipedia's standards, even if they do fluctuate. Triped 21:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this well known business. Bryan Derksen says it best. —RaD Man (talk) 02:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, a shopping guide, or a place for testimonials about consumer products. GRider\talk 18:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Captains of Crush controversy

Why not talk about the Captains of Crush controversy? Used to be that you could get the cert if you had the gripper closed from parallel to close (the hardest part). Unfortunately, they decided that they'd change these rules and all subsequent closes had to be done with a credit card between the handles, widthwise, before start. This means for many that they'd be in a mechanically disadvantaged position and interestingly enough NOBODY has closed the #4 with these new rules. Many who were 1/8" or less on the #4 before the rule change abandoned the quest.

This article is 99.9% spam and likely exists to increase the pagerank of the linked site. My website gets regular waves of spam for this website - attach

  • /ironcms/opencms/ironmind/forms/tramadol-ultram/tramadol-line.html
  • /ironcms/opencms/ironmind/forms/tramadol-ultram/tramadol-best-buy.html
  • /ironcms/opencms/ironmind/forms/tramadol-ultram/link-move.to-online-tramadol.html

to their domain name and check for yourself. It's a link-farm: Similar Pages List on Google

124.177.4.56 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] added cleanup-Spam tag

I am aware that the website has been reviewed in 2004 already and has passed a community review, however I believe that certain things have changed that may warrant a re-review of whether this website should indeed be listed.

The main reason for that is that ironmind.com appears to be a link farm - look at this example of related pages in Google to see what I mean. Searching for ironmind.com on Google also yields a lot of results showing how aggressively this website is advertised, as such I am confident to say that the entry on Wikipedia - especially since its suitability for an encyclopedia was already disputed at one point - only exists to boost its Google pagerank.

124.177.4.56 11:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So all you're saying really is that Ironmind is a business. There are plenty of businesses with Wikipedia entries, that doesn't automatically make them all spam. I don't agree with your claim that the Ironmind site is a "link farm" either, as I understand the term (it certainly doesn't fit with the definition of link farm). Dsreyn 18:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)