Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gym floor cover

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; I suggest finding a way to merge this article into a broader topic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 09:55Z

[edit] Gym floor cover

Gym floor cover (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:CORP, WP:COI, WP:SPAM. Overspecific article on nonnotable product, a clear attempt to establish a presence within Wikipedia. Creator is User:Gymfloorcover, presumably affiliated with, or the owner of http://covermaster.net/. Repeated attempts to place links to the company, also through restrictively licensed images [1] (possible copyright problem, taken from the company website, no confirmation of permission). A related IP spammed internally [2][3][4] for the article. Specific product codes were named (apparently now rowing back testing how much promotion is too much promotion). Basically the article could be redirected to tarp, but there are no independently added incoming links, so delete as nominator. Femto 13:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for failure of WP:CORP. Lexisnexis returns no hits for "gym floor cover"--Beaker342 15:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep.

1) It looks like nominator's request (Femto) has little to do with the topic of the article. This is quote from the user Femto "I don't doubt that the topic is notable..." posted on December 6, 2006 on the Talk page. Now she/he contradicts herself/himself by calling this topic non notable.

2) This request for deletion came as a personal retaliation (WP:CIVIL) after my post on the talk page. User Beaker342 did not provide any constructive feedback even though I asked her/him to point out what can be improved or what in particular in the text does not comply. She/He initially came with the idea that this page needs to be deleted, she/he never had any improvement suggestions or intentions to do so.

3). User Femto is not acting in the good faith by accusing me of intentional spamming. Here's why:

a) External link to the inventor's site was placed to distinguish this company from a similar brand that has nothing to do with gym floor covers. Please see for yourself: http://www.covermaster.net vs. http://www.covermasterinc.com.

b) Femto is accusing me of not having permission to use images on the site. I have such permission. I would appreciate your advice on how I can make it more prominent, so that I don't have any troubles with copyright licensing.

c) Femto is accusing me of using restrictive license for these images. I would like them to stay copyrighted in such a way that other people can use them if they give a credit to the author. Again, any suggestions on how to improve this licensing business would be welcome.

d) Femto is accusing me of internal spamming. In fact, a message from Wikipedia bot encouraged me to interconnect my article with related topics. I posted my suggestion where I though they would be relevant. I've never spammed those locations. If editors wanted to remove those links they were free to do so.

e) Femto is accusing me of the following "testing how much promotion is too much promotion". This is definitely not acting in the good faith. This user has no insight in my intentions and should not speculate on this. At some point I've mentioned a brand of the product just to be accurate what's illustrated on the picture. My reasoning was that if you were to compare, for example, two tanks you would mentioned you're comparing T-34 and Ferdinand rather than saying "this is green tank vs. gray tank". Later, I've decided that this might be offensive to some editors and removed the brand name. Now I'm the bad person for removing this.

f) Femto suggests redirecting this article to tarp without realizing that gym floor cover is not a raw material, plastic or tarp. It is a large flat surface product that is produced with unique knife coating process that allows to blend multiple layers with different textures, colors and other technical characteristics. The inventor has patents and pending patents for this manufacturing process. This is environmentally friendly product that saves hardwood floors (read trees) all over in North America.

g) Beaker342 refers to Lexisnexis. Can please anyone confirm this is an official tool used by Wikipedia? Thanks.

With this being said, I would like other editors to read this article over and help me with improvement suggestions. Thank you!
Gymfloorcover 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1) It is a tongue in cheek reply to your comment that the article was "created to educate people about gym floor covers as a product" (which may be read as "advertising"). Even so, there's a difference between something deserving a mention in an encyclopedia and devoting a whole article to it. Especially when the only major editor of that article is a manufacturer of the product. Femto 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not a manufacturer. Your assumption is incorrect.

Replace with "vendor of the product and their agents" then. Femto 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• 2) No it didn't. I think the article should be deleted, saw that I'm not the only one, and brought it to the appropriate place for discussion.
• 3b) There is no proper confirmation of permission, without which copyrighted company material cannot be used. I already pointed you to the appropriate guidelines on your talk page. Femto 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• What exact wording would be most appropriate?

• 3c) This is not an accusation but plain fact. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You restrict the use in such a way that these images can only be used if your comany gets some free promotion. Femto 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• When a photographer takes a picture it is fair to expect he would not be happy if someone uses it without a proper credit. If a photographer transfers ownership rights to a company, they would want the same treatment. Now, what type of licensing do you recommend in this case?

It's not the photographer but your company that must be credited. Such images are simply not appropriate to use in a free encyclopedia, no prettified licensing can change this. Femto 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• 3d,e) The IP that added these internal as well as external links [5][6] is registered to QualityIntegrity SEO Marketing, a company providing services for internet marketing, website promotion, and search engine optimization. Covermaster.net is a customer of that company. I think this gives a very interesting insight in the intentions behind this article.

• My IP is different. I've checked the one suggested by you, and it belongs to someone else.

"And it belongs to someone else"...who is demonstrably paid by covermaster.net to promote their company, you mean. The article is an obvious violation of WP:COI. Femto 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• 3g) There are no official tools, fact seems that the term sees little use outside the companies that try to sell this product.

• This is because whoever uses it doesn't need to write about it. People go to gym with other purposes. :) Gymfloorcover 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Femto 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (or maybe redirect if a good one is suggested? Tarp does not seem like a good idea to me). It appears to me that this is something which is frequently done, if there was only one company doing this then I'd be supporting deletion (unless independent sources etc.. could be found). But because this has a wider user I suggest that it be rewritten less as an advertisement and more generically etc... Mathmo ^Talk 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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.