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. ✗plicit 13:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IFit (brand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:GNG, with pseudo-references that are PR pieces and/or passing mentions. I note the declaration by a paid editor in compliance with Wikipedia policies, and they have contributed via edit requests. Nonetheless I conclude that this is WP:ADMASQ, the more so since my WP:BEFORE only revealed similar sourcing Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with the related IFIT Health & Fitness -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFIT Health & Fitness. -- it's essentially the same company; there is no possible justification for two separate articles except the desire of the company or the paid editor to advertise as widely as possible. A I have no confidence from discussions with the editor over several articles that they will make improvements The only other way they'd get improved is if I or some other charitable editor here did it, and I certainly am not going to work on articles other people get paid for, at least not unless it's an article so important and so interesting that I'd work on it of my own accord-- and this one is neither. I am not just willing, but eager, to teach volunteers how to edit--it's one of the main satisfactions of WP. I have sometimes as an exception been willing to help a basically competent paid editor who does not know the WP conventions, if they actually take my advice. That's not the situation here--the AfCs on which I and Timtrent have commented are no better for the advice we've been giving. I don't think I should be the admin who does it, but we should also consider a block for NOTHERE. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I endorse DGG's comment about the editor, who does not engage with advice despite appearing to engage with advising editors. I support at the very least a warning for WP:NOTHERE, with consideration for a block. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was the original creator of the article back in 2015 and thought this was going to become a new standard like Fitbit. This never happened. Some of the information in this article may be saved and merged with IFIT Health & Fitness, if appropriate.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2021 (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.