Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StairMaster

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.

StairMaster

StairMaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No sources to prove WP:NCORP. Online websearch did not help much Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)SOCK STRIKE[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Washington. AllyD (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The company's history dates back to the 1980s, so a simple online web search only gets you so far; you have to look at print and other databases, and/or do more sophisticated searches on Google, for a more accurate picture of what is out there. This is one of those cases that the brand is so pervasive and the history is so long that basic searches (even in Google) tend to return "too many" results, and it requires a considerable amount of time to sort through it all. I don't have time for that right now, but to give you an idea of sources that could easily be added, a quick search from Newspapers.com yields coverage like this 1989 feature article in the Ottawa Citizen; an in-depth product feature on the Gravitron by Stairmaster in The New York Daily News; this 1992 Tulsa World article on the company's merger (yes, we need to be careful with these types of news articles, but this one appears to contain independent analysis and context); and this comparison product review in the Chicago Tribune found via ProQuest. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep the idea that one of the first major workout machine manufactures is not notable is a thing.Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
  list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Strong Keep. There is an abudance of academic literature where the company's work is a key part of the study. Some quick examples follow:

1. BUTTS, N. K.; DODGE, C.; MCALPINE, M. Effect of stepping rate on energy costs during Stairmaster exercise. / Effet de la vitesse de montee de marches sur les couts energetiques lors d ’ une epreuve de montee de marches sur le stairmaster. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, [s. l.], v. 25, n. 3, p. 378–382, 1993. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=SPH342407&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 8 dez. 2022.
2. RYAN, N. D.; MORROW JR., J. R.; PIVARNIK, J. M. Reliability and Validity Characteristics of Cardiorespiratory Responses on the StairMaster 4000PT®. Measurement in Physical Education & Exercise Science, [s. l.], v. 2, n. 2, p. 115, 1998. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=7598275&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 8 dez. 2022.
3. SCHAUMBURG, L. von et al. Submaximal Testing to Estimate Aerobic Capacity Using a Matrix C5x Stepmill. Journal of Human Kinetics, [s. l.], v. 83, n. 1, p. 121–129, 2022. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=159009024&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 8 dez. 2022.

This company is way beyond the minimum threshold for corporate notability. CT55555(talk) 16:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Coverage has been found of this well known exercise machine. The article needs some work though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1997/03/19/bummed-out-on-the-stairmaster/6e4f1aca-a808-4a3a-9faa-4a12f678efdb/ shows an entire article written about whether or not it gives you a larger butt. Dream Focus 18:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable exercise product - I am hoping that some terrific editors help put the references in the article: that way we will not be back here again with an AfD. I have only added one Smithsonian reference to an unreferenced paragraph. It may be beneficial to just erase the unreferenced paragraphs which I have tagged with [
  WP:TNT style. I have had to do that with several product articles like this example Gibson ES-175. Lightburst (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Product line has sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very well-recognized brand and product in the fitness space (for decades!), to the point where it verges on being genericized as a shorthand for any sort of aerobic machine. Thoroughly satisfies our notability standards; we just need to improve the article. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 22:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Normally I wouldn't say that a page should be kept because "everyone's heard of it" but...everyone has heard of stairmaster. There are enough references out there to show that it's culturally significant. The improvements to the page have already gone a long way towards fixing any sourcing and POV issues. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]