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. Contact me with any concerns related to SPI. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Fitness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fastest growing is meaningless in terms of importance when there is a very small base. Essentially all companies on the Inc list of fastest growing companies are probably what we would call not yet notable. The references are just PR. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is spam, but it is needed as evidence in the Morning277 SPI. I had intended to ask for G5 deletion after the investigation. I believe that if it is kept, it will be maintained by hired writers and remain purely promotional. —rybec 17:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't "needed" to be kept for any purpose. Admins and checkusers can view deleted articles easily, so for the purpose of a SPI, it doesn't matter if this gets deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used too strong a word. I had read comments from Dennis Brown and Legoktm about how it's more difficult to investigate when articles have been deleted. Perhaps it's harder to view deleted articles in an editor's contributions? —rybec 00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Why wouldn't WP:CSD#G11 apply here? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... ~Amatulić (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2013 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.