Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill

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 keep. The article has since been expanded and meets all the requirements. I believe I can close this one a bit early, otherwise I cite WP:SNOW. Tone 07:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I am a fan of Stephen Colbert myself, an article about this "treadmill" fails WP:NOTABILITY – it is about a single event that occurred in the past in response to Colbert's television program. The event received considerable coverage then, and got the appropriate response from NASA, too. However, that's in the past. The "product" is not an actual "treadmill" that will be sold to the general public. It's a publicity stunt by the comedian that NASA took the bait on. It's worthy of a mention in the Stephen Colbert article, as well as an article about the International Space Station. But it's not worthy of its own article. Recommend to delete and redirect to Stephen Colbert. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to you Dr. Cash, this treadmill existed before Stephen got involved. And without COLBERT this would have been notable on its own. Go here and look at APAS and PDGF. Users in the past have chosen not to bother nominating these and other articles in the past because the ISS and its related subsystems are notable. Nasa-verve (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Stephen Colbert. Although I have heard passing mention of "a treadmill named for comedian Stephen Colbert" in media reports of the recent space shuttle launch, notability can be neither temporary nor inherited. Cnilep (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  A merger to Stephen Colbert would be inappropriate, based on the fact that the only connection to him is through the naming contest. The item itself, a Treadmill specifically designed for the ISS, really has nothing to do with Colbert or his show.

  As for the recentism aspect, since the treadmill itself is new, and it's being brought to the station on STS-128, some recentism is unavoidable. Extending that to claim that "notability cannot be temporary" applies to this seems to be a real stretch, though. We probably just disagree about the application of Notability, but based on the other "keep" !votes here I don't think that I'm alone in this.
  — V = I * R (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I hear what the nominator is saying, but (yes that dreaded word), the piece itself is well written – well documented and well sourced by 3rd party – creditable – independent and verifiable resources. Isn’t that all we ask for any article to meet notability standards? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I already pointed out, it's well-documented because it was covered in the press at the time. I don't deny that. But the article is unlikely to continue to grow because it's a single event that happened once. There really won't be anything new on this, and if you look at Google news, there really hasn't been anything on this recently. This might be an excellent piece for Urban Dictionary, as a definition, but Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we care if the article grows and is developed? If its notable, it could just be the same way in 5 years and still serve its purpose of explaining a notable piece of equipment and could get linked to by 100 other WP articles. Nasa-verve (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — A couple of points. The article deals with a piece of equipment that is going to the ISS on STS-128, which is scheduled to depart any time now (hopefully tomorrow). The naming issue was one event that occurred in the past, but if you'd actually take a moment to look at the article then you'll notice that there's more to this then that single event. The Colbert aspect to the story gives it additional fame, but you're obviously allowing that to prejudice your view. This isn't an article about a single event, and while it involves a story created by Colbert, that is only one aspect of it.
  — V = I * R (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The Colbert aspect of this should be in either the Stephen Colbert article, or The Colbert Report article. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The Colbert aspects to the story are already covered, and in more depth, on the Tranquility (ISS module)#Naming contest page, and their touched on in the Colbert report article (in the Colbert report#Other honors section).
  — V = I * R (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So, it's settled then! This page is redundant. :-) Dr. Cash (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure where you come up with that idea... this article is about the treadmill itself, and by association it is also about life and exercise in space. The naming aspect is only one event that involves both the Tranquility module and the COLBERT treadmill, and as such is treated appropriately in a section of each article. Just because Steven Colbert is involved in something doesn't automatically make it all about him. The treadmills and the module are both more important, and more substantial, then Steven Colbert and the show that he hosts. You shouldn't allow pop culture to blind you to the fact that there are actually significant things occurring in and around the world.
  — V = I * R (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's STEPHEN Colbert. By the way, the 't' at the end of "Colbert" is silent, like in French,... Dr. Cash (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In addition to the earlier media coverage, it should be notable for being a piece of equipment on the ISS. That said, it needs more technical information, as most of the article at the moment is about the naming dispute. --GW… 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that there are currently still content issues with the article. I was really hoping that someone else would be willing to help out, collaborate, and we could expand the article (I don't want to even try to "own" the article, although you guys seem to want to force me to somewhat). There seems to have been some nibbles, but this is hardly going to help that process along. Oh well.
  — V = I * R (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Does that mean that the toilet on the ISS should have it's own article, too? Where does it end? I mean, in all actuality, there's an article on a Space toilet, which covers this. By that logic, we should put this info into the treadmill article. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Cash --- except for the obvious truth that there are no space toilets used on Earth, while there are definately treadmills used on Earth. I think you are unfamiliar with space exploration and how something is determined to be notable or not. I think we need to make a section or article in the WP namespace establishing what is notable for space exploration related articles. I've seen this issue before.... Nasa-verve (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The argument here relies on the likelihood (rather, lack there of) of the article being expanded due to future developments regarding the object in question. As the shuttle mission on which the object is to be delivered hasn't even gotten off the ground yet, discussion of likelihood for further developments seems premature. NASA's putting the equipment out there for a reason. If there are no developments once the equipment is in orbit, perhaps it can be merged with the Colbert article (as yes, the article currently is more about the naming than the object), or with another article regarding ISS experiments if the article were expanded to include that information, but no further developments occur. Again, tentative Keep pending the experiment actually making it to orbit. Gnowor^Talk2Me_{did wha?} 02:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AfD seems to be moving in the direction of keep, so taking into account WP:SNOW, perhaps it's best to just close the AfD and keep the article at this time. I still think it's rather pointless to keep it, and it's better discussed elsewhere. But the community consensus is disagreeing, for some reason. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If we are going to keep it the AFD notice on COLBERT probably should be removed. --BHC (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You could withdraw the nomination yourself, if you don't want to pursue this any further. I know that I would appreciate it, as I don't like being the only editor developing the article. It appears that the AFD already pretty much drove others away from editing it during the peak period of interest but that's not really an excuse for carrying this on longer.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The content is both notable and verifiable as shown by numerous 3rd party sources. Criteria for an independent article have been fulfilled. This article is also too long already to merge into the Stephen Colbert article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There was plenty of news coverage of it. Radio news shows mentioned that the module was being taken up by the shuttle, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 14:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This would have been notable even if it had not been re-named COLBERT. Since it involves the rename and the NASA PR involved with the re-name this is a speedy keep for me. Nasa-verve (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm a bit confused about whether we are voting on Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill or Treadmill with Vibration Isolation System (at the moment the former redirects to the latter, which isn't a horrible situation but there are two treadmills with two different designs). Both treadmills should have a publication history, in addition to the news media, in space fan/industry publications (Space News, Aviation Week, etc) and probably in more technical contexts too (e.g. NASA technical reports). I'll see if I can quickly track down some (more) sources, but this has almost nothing to do with Stephen Colbert. Kingdon (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I moved the page yesterday, partially based on pieces of this discussion. Since COLBERT is a modified and improved TVIS, using "Treadmill with Vibration Isolation System" makes sense anyway. I was thinking of doing something like that earlier, but hadn't really made up my mind (and I was hoping to see input on the issue). Since this seems to be clearly in the Keep category, I decided to get back to actually working on the article, and the move was one of the first things I did.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an article about space station equipment. Space station is likely so notable that everything aboard is notable. Why should it be deleted? If some other article exists about the same piece of equipment, should be merged. If it is another piece, even same model, likely should be kept. Audriusa (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but expand on the previous Treadmill with Vibration Isolation System (the first treadmill on the station). If we're going to name the article TVIS and cover both TVIS mk. I and mk. II (where mk. II = COLBERT), then there needs to be a balance in the article content. Alba (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, agreed... some additional assistance in this would be greatly appreciated.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.