Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P90X (3rd nomination)

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. Nakon 02:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P90X

P90X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Apparent promotion DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. While it's not the best article on Wikipedia, it's certainly a notable subject and has been edited over 1,000 times over the past 6 years by dozens of editors. This subject has not lost any notability since the last AFD. A lot of the sources listed in the article do not meet WP:RS, but at least two do. There are thousands of others available, too. For instance: The Guardian [1], US News & World Report [2], Esquire [3], Time Magazine [4], ABC News [5], The New York Times [6], and CNBC [7]...and those are just the tip of the iceberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are other reasons for deletion besides lack of notability--such as being primarily promotional. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What about it is promotional? As I pointed out - it's been edited by dozens of editors over 1000 times in the past 6 years. So a couple of those ended up swinging a little more in the promotional realm...fix it. Deletion is not cleanup. --162.95.216.224 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that really a reason to delete? It seems like it would be better to keep the article if it's notable and just rewrite it to be less promotional. Deletion is, after all, not cleanup. Everymorning talk 01:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• According to statistics, in the last 30 days this page has been viewed 18,144 times. I think that shows it is a page people find useful^[1]. Alvb talk 21:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the IP. This is a notable workout program with enough coverage in independent sources. I cleaned the article up a bit and tried to reduce the promotional tone. It read like it was the P90x website.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Four keep arguments and the only delete argument is the nomination and it's not a valid one. Why does this keep getting relisted?

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.