Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crunch Fitness

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. (Nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch Fitness

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

Written in a blatantly promotional style. That could be fixed, but I can't find any WP:RS. With the exception of one (routine coverage of a real-estate transaction), all of the references in the article are to the company's own website, and I can't find anything better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is weird. If you go back to the very first version of this article, there's actually some semi-decent references. They're all just routine coverage of a financial nature (bankruptcy filing, etc), so I still don't think we've got WP:CORPDEPTH covered. They're also not flattering to the company. I haven't done an extensive search of the history, but this sure looks like a case of a deliberate rewrite to give the company a promotional boost. Be that as it may, I don't see how this meets WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, if somebody could identify a version in the history which is non-promotional and has good sourcing, I would have no objection to reverting back to that. But, I haven't been able to find one that meets both criteria. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar this passes the "I've heard of it" test, but I can say little else in its favor. I'll do a full check for sources before !voting, but don't see any reason to keep it right now; RoySmith is spot on regarding the two versions in the article history. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to keep it; it compares well to a lot of the chains on List of Health club chains and there is WP:MILL coverage of some individual locations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - obviously meets notability guideline. However, about three years ago a spam account replaced its content and removed all the reliable sources.[1] If the current article doesn't meet sourcing guidelines, it ought to be reverted to the viable version. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to Wikidemon for finding a decent version. I've reverted the article back to that version, which we should keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2017 (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.