Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insanity (Home exercise 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. I'm sorry Ashershow but the delete !voters have the stronger argument here. However, that ABC news source you provided is a reliable source and if 1 or preferably 2 more can be found then that might make it. I'll be glad to incubate or userfy this article on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity (Home exercise program)[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article about a home fitness program has been reviewed dozens of times online, and is currently a very popular workout system. Just as notable as P90X or any other fitness program.--Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 14:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When one comes across something like this, one's spidey-sense starts to tingle: is this article perhaps intended as publicity for an unnotable entity? In this case, I would say: yes, it is. There are no good references - three references, two to sites connected to the entity and one to an obscure website dedicated to reviewing systems like this. We need some actual indications of notability, and they are absent. The previous poster alluded to P90X, but that article has a couple of good references - Washington Post, CNN, Bloomberg. This article has nothing like that. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, spidey sense is a good description of it. Just doing a google search suggests lots of notabillity, but when you start to read it its feels like Astroturfing.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Stacks of G-hits, but many of them are of dubious quality, e.g. obviously sales and promotional based sites. I read quite a few reviews and they were all very promotional in style rather than being objective third party assessments. I have a feeling that the people behind this system are very good at web promotion and generating buzz (as evidenced by their P90X scheme being the most shown infomercial in the US). Coupled with the promotional style of the original version of the article (which was speedy deleted under G11) I'm not convinced the subject is notable enough. The sheer volume suggests it may be, but I'd like to see some better quality sources that are more obviously indepedent. e.g. articles in mainstream press discussing its popularity (as was provided on the Beachbody article). If such citations were added my vote would probably change to keep.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for sources in big news agencies, then Insanity was featured on an ABC News segment here. It was also reviewed by an expert on WebMD here.--Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, might do the trick but both still have that same promotional feel. I'll be interested to see how other users rate this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am convinced this is likely astroturfing/shilling. Simple as that. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has legitimate sources from both the mainstream media and bloggers. Simply because many reviewers liked the program doesn't make it inherently biased or "promotional." If ABC, WebMD, numerous bloggers and of course the official primary source Beachbody.com/Insanity aren't good enough sources, I don't know what is.--Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 17:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When all the reviewers who liked it use similar phrases that ape the promotional material of the company then it looks dubious. Note that bloggers and the company's own website are not good enough sources--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will make one final point before this page is discarded. Insanity unfortunately got off to the wrong foot with sources that were too primary for WP, but now has perfectly reasonable sources that would not be questioned for their "promotional tone" if they had not been apart of a deletion discussion. The majority of the sources at the P90X page are written in supprt of P90X. I don't believe a good review, despite what some may consider a "biased attitude," invalidates a source for inclusion. I hope administrators will see sources such ABC news and WebMD and reconsider the deletion of this article.--Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 21:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Vote and reply below copied from article talk page in case they are unfamiliar with the deletion process)--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I recently wrote this same article and "the paintedone" had it deleted. It really is unfortunate that the moderators are so ignorant. Mine was deleted on the grounds that it lacked significance however this is a multi-million dollar fitness program with an aggressive ad campaign. It is significant to people who exercise regularly or are trying to get into shape. It would seem though that a few of the moderators do not fall into that category and are committing grievous fallacy of composition errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amplus imperium (talk • contribs) 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version of the article wasn't deleted for being unimportant (A7), but on criteria G11 for being promotional. I've copied the relevent guideline below for ref.

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.

The current deletion proposal is because there does not appear to be sufficient quality, third party references to show that this is a notable scheme. Note that just being on sale does not make it notable, nor the size of the budget the company has put into it or the size and notabillity of the company. The kind of coverage required is stuff that demonstrates, independently of promotional work from the company, that this is a popular and well subscribed system. So a major news organisation doing an unprompted piece on how popular it is (and not just what appears to be a paid advertising segment). I've voted weak delete, because there is a fair bit of buzz around the system, but a lot of it looks to be the direct result of promotional work by the company, so not really independent notabillity..--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without wishing to assume bad faith, I think it worth noting that Amplus imperium's only edits to date, other than the comment copied above, were the original version of this article which was speedy deleted under criteria G11 as blatant promotion. That version of the article included details of where to buy and the price of the system, hence it was viewed as an advert and speedied. As such I think it reasonable to consider that this may be a single purpose account with possible COI. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful page and in my view notable. Dougransom (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 February 2011

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.