Talk:Gym floor cover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-02. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Pavel wrote: "(written in marketese, not much of real content, possibly NN)"

1. Where exactly in the text marketese is used?
2. Which part is not "real" content
3. NN?

I expect more explanations from editors who give negative comments.

Thank you

Gymfloorcover

If you search for NN at wikipedia, you learn that it is short for non notable, as in the subject might not be worthy of an article. Pavel also rightly noted that the article is written like an advertisement in violation of the standards that appear at WP:SPAM. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with these standards.--Beaker342 03:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Beaker, Pavel,

Here's my thoughts. Of course, Wikipedia needs first to be filled with more important articles and more important topics. And after those are covered and there's no more gaps in "important" stuff, then people can finally go ahead and white about all the "secondary" things and all the non-important non notables. Or, you might say, Wikipedia is a conservative encyclopedia and only theoretical, scientific and sophisticated topics can get in. I do not disagree, let's keep it straight laced and "classy".

On the other hand, as an editor, you can't be judgmental about importance of certain things just based on your own experience. If you never heard of something or you would never ever find it useful for yourself, think about all the other people who would. Think of all the people who know about it and want to learn more. You have no idea how many organizations (especially non-profit) are using gym floor covers in their facilities. You cannot judge about importance of things based on your own experience or even of your friends'.

With this being said, in your mind, which inventions deserve a Wikipedia article and which do not? Why is it ok to have an article about Toothpicks or Tampax or Backscratcher or Q-tip or King's American Dispensatory or Idiot light but not gym floor cover? Why are you not appreciating the fact that someone took their time to contribute an article on the topic that not that many other people are experts in? Why are you not respectful of other people's knowledge on the subjects you've never dealt with before? What do you know about gym floor covers? How can you contribute to this topic (I mean besides deleting everything that's outside of your universe)? What useful suggestions do you have instead of your negative comments?

It's just so sad that many editors feel like they are on the power trip and they can decide what other authors can write about and what not. I believe this is the Wikipedia - with the freedom of speech and reasonable censorship, and if this article is not significant enough for you, its existense is not hurting you. This is what I know about best and what I want to share with others. There are people who will read it and find it helpful.

Another claim you've made is that article is written as an advertisement. Please tell me where did you see a call to action, a commercial offer or pushy language? All it talks about is how gym floor covers are used, made and were invented. What would you word differently? Do you have any suggestions how I can improve it? It is so easy to point your finger without having a better solution. I would like to hear more about that.

There's a pretty good reason why certain things are mentioned in this article. Please use TALK option before you introduce your changes or vandalize creative ideas. If you suggestions make sense I'll even help you to implement them.

Thank you

Gymfloorcover 07:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Putting a tag on an article is not vandalism, so don't accuse anyone of engaging in vandalism. It is incivil and a violation of WP:CIVIL. The tag is added to draw attention of other editors that the article is in need of improvement. Accusing other editors of being on power trips is also incivil. Which articles deserve their own articles has nothing to do with our own opinions and everything to do with Wilkipedia's notability guidlines. Please see WP:N. Please also see, WP:CORP, which this subject probably fails.--Beaker342 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for products and services A product or service is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary. Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues. The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization.

---

Hi Femto, thank you very much for your input and your time to actually outline your point of view. This article was initially created to educate people about gym floor covers as a product. I believe it deserves a separate page in Wikipedia since it's a unique product that many organizations (mostly non-profit) have a need for but are unaware of its existence.

With this being said, if you remove links that give Wiki readers a comprehensive example of what gym floor covers are like or the original inventor's site, you're limiting people's understanding of the topic. Instead of being seen as a utility equipment with a purpose, it's being portrayed as a raw material, literally a piece of plastic. I think it takes away from what this originally was meant to be.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has more articles about different types of plastic than objects (like gym floor covers) produced by our culture as a result of technological progress. That's why you see so many internal links pointing to the pages with polymers. If Wiki had more pages about school or gym supplies then internal linking would be different. That is why external linking (which you have removed) had an additional purpose to provide a bigger picture.

Covermaster.net has several useful pages like http://www.covermaster.net/features_benefits.html or http://www.covermaster.net/gym_floor_covers.html with comprehensive technical details that no other site is offering in this industry. I guess it's just a somewhat biased view whether you want to see Wiki as a dry academical source or as a live snapshot of our culture. I hope this is good enough justification why I'd like those links back. Please, let me know if you have any questions. Russie. 20:20, 04 December 2006 (EST) (204.92.14.98)

Are you User:Gymfloorcover? If so, please log in to edit.

>> created to educate people about gym floor covers as a product

I don't doubt that the topic is notable, but sorry, I can't help but this sounds a little like "promotional lobbying" to me.

>> I think it takes away from what this originally was meant to be.

In case you mean that the article was primarily created as a place for links to a company website, taking away the links will take away from it, obviously. We can describe a product without linking to commercial suppliers.

>> If Wiki had more pages about school or gym supplies then internal linking would be different.

That's the point. External links do not change that. The article will never improve beyond being a business directory this way, and that's not what Wikipedia is for.

All I see at the covermaster.net website is a company advertising its products. So, inline links to their main page or links to their product description pages are not appropriate. It will suffice for encyclopedic completeness to mention the company by its name as the inventor. Femto 20:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)