Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Gym 1000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 roundhouse keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total Gym 1000

Only notability of this product is its association with Chuck Norris. As it reads currently, article is a non-notable unencyclopedic vanity advertisement. Katr67 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional keep. If this is cleaned up, it seems to fit notability requirements - 84,000 Ghits in quotations; available for purchase through many major retailers including Wal Mart and body building stores. Srose (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Conditional keep. While the article does strive to maintain NPOV, it is essentially a product review, and I find it highly unlikely that any references will be found that are not either opinion (independent reviews) or materials from the manufacturer. A better (and different) article would be one (non-vanity) about the company that produced it. Or better yet, an article about that class of exercise machines into which the TG1000 falls, with perhaps a list of machines that are in the class or a statement like, "... such as the Total Gym 1000." Twisted86 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Okay, Deville convinced me -- especially after looking at the Bowflex Machine article. Which led to a tangential editing of the Nautilus, Incorporated article, which led to tinkering with the Arthur Jones article. <sigh> I'm still with Katr on the notability issue, but I live under a rock as far as pop culture is concerned, so I can't really judge whether this is notable or not. Twisted86 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment waves from under rock I'm not ready to retract my nomination, as I feel this discussion is necessary. As far as notability is concerned, however, despite not watching much television, I've heard of Nautilus, and I've heard of Bowflex. Will Total Gym 1000 stand the test of time so that your average American (correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt this is an international phenomenon), will have heard of it? Millions of products are introduced each year, but they don't all rate an article in Wikipedia.
  • To answer this, I am Australian and know it. The infomercials for it have been broadcasted on late night public television for years and I have known well funded gyms that have kept this device. The infomercials are notable in themselves: "Buffed up gym junkie says to Norris: "Chuck, I have been a fan of walker texas ranger for years and I have always wanted to know how you keep in such good shape" Chuck"with the total gym 1000" with woman in swimsuits surrounding and stroking him. I did not think keeping it would be a big issue as it is available in most retail stores in Australia like Big W and K-Mart as well as on Danoz direct. I also believe that exercise generally is very badly done on Wikipedia and fitness devices are always valuable to add. Consider the Pokemon test and I am sure that this has come out on top. Everyone knows the infomercial adds at least and they have been a joke here for years. --Realms forward 05:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after an extensive cleanup, as per Srose. I think that Twisted's objections could be overcome if the article were really encyclopedic, as of now I agree it is much more of a product review. For example, if this article looked much more like Bowflex Machine, then I think we'd be in business. Also, we should be careful about angering Chuck Norris...:) -- Deville (Talk) 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. I believe keeping information on all sorts of exercise machines is encyclopedic and good for people seeking information about this type of thing. NB, I wrote the article. Perhaps a new category is required for such devices. I did try to write it NPOV and would welcome and encourage any suitable changes to the article. --Realms forward 02:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Needs a rewrite, but thats not a good enuff reason for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.169.185 (talk • contribs) 11:33, August 9, 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Can some of the folks holding this position give a good reason why this article should be retained? We've seen arguments about why it should not be deleted, but none about why it should be retained, which is not quite the same thing. Considering the question this way might give some better insight.... Twisted86 23:48, August 9, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non encyclopedic, advert. MaNeMeBasat 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
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.