Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitness fanatic (2nd 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 no consensus. Multiple editors assert that this is a pure dictionary definition and should be deleted as such. Others assert that it is not, and contains sufficient information to warrant an encyclopedia article and should be kept and expanded as a stand-alone article. Others still believe this information would be best suited merged elsewhere and should be merged. There is no solid consensus in particular here to do any of these three things. ~ mazca ^talk 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fitness fanatic

Contested prod. Article has no realistic hope of expansion, more suitable as a Wiktionary definition Jezhotwells (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note first nomination made vai Twinkle did not list correctly. 10:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep The nomination offers no evidence to support its dubious contention. Peremptory deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Exercise addiction, a topic which desperately needs an article, and expand. A Google books search for "fitness fanatic" reveals that the term generally refers to an unhealthy exercise-centered lifestyle, in other words, exercise addiction. There are 1,082 Google Books hits for exercise addict and 927 Google Books hits for fitness fanatic. Abductive (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two are not necessarily the same. For example, Theodore Roosevelt and Bernard Montgomery seem to have been fanatical about fitness for good reasons - personal health and military efficiency - without having been personally addicted. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but nearly everything has fans, hobbyists or people who choose it as a lifestyle. That is what irritated people into nominating this article for deletion. But an article on exercise addition can certainly point out that not all fitness fanatics are exercise addicts. Abductive (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information can be moved to Exercise#Excessive_exercise as a sub-section. There is not enough info to substantiate this as an article. –Turian ^talk 12:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal would be contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how: moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new). The information should be moved to a different article. –Turian ^talk 13:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moves are not performed by means of deletion. If you delete content then you take its edit history with it. If you then reuse that content elsewhere, you will be breaking the copyright of the original contributor per our licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the pont of WP:OWN? –Turian ^talk 13:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different matter. As that page explains, "This page is about control over an article's text. For the ownership of copyright in an article, see Wikipedia:Copyrights.". What this means is that you can freely change a text to your own words but you can't freely copy the text written by another editor - you must give them credit. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that is fair; however stating "move sourced and encyclopedic content to another article" is misleading. I still say we delete the article, though. –Turian ^talk 14:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - merge and delete isn't an option and your insistence on arguing for it against policy is rather disturbing. It you merge material, you must leave behind a redirect (and take certain other steps) to comply with our licensing terms. please see WP:MERGE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as dicdef. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're not a dictionary, damnit. JBsupreme (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that this is a dictionary entry seems mistaken as it contains neither pronounciation, etymology or other dictionary content. And neither the OED nor Wiktionary contain the phrase fitness fanatic so it doesn't seem that they accept this as a dictionary entry. Please provide some rationale or explanation which conforms with our policy WP:DICDEF. Note especially the advice of this policy regarding the perennial confusion between stubs or short articles and dictionary content. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into overtraining. -- The Anome (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - the material is notable and the entry goes well beyond a dictionary definition. The potential for expansion is fairly extensive, so I don't believe merging is needed, but I wouldn't object to it either. (I do think there is probably a better way to describe someone who is really into exercise than "fitness fanatic" though, so perhaps a rename is in order if a I better title can be thought up.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into overtraining: merely a dictionary-definition 'supported' by some brief sections that are only tangentially related to the stated topic (making the construction of the article, overall, a case of WP:Synthesis). This tangential material might be relevant to overtraining, but even that's not clear. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:35, 5 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.