- 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 merge to ParticipACTION. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Body Break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is about television commercial. --Fremte (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Do we have any policy or guiideline that says we can't have articles about television commercials? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepMerge as suggested below. This series of television commercials would appear to be notable. Sources may be difficult to find because it predates the popularisation of the Internet, but here is a contemporary source and these sources all seem to be written in a way that assume that the readers many years later are still familiar with the campaign: [1], [2], [3]("best-remembered for the 90-second 'Body Break' commercials hosted by handsome black-and-white couple Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod" appears past the free-view abstract) and [4]("the grinning, gregarious hosts of those ubiquitous Body Break television spots, Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod"). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Weak Keep per Phil Bridger. Kyle1278 20:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to ParticipACTION. Body Breaks weren't commercials, they were a long-running series of PSAs, on a par with Hinterland Who's Who and Heritage Minutes. That having been said, it doesn't make much sense to have an article for Body Break separate from ParticpACTION. PKT(alk) 21:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a merge would make sense to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree now with Merge. Took a look at ParticipACTION. This is a good proposal. Thanks. --Fremte (talk) 22:02, 23 November 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.