Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strutt Family Trust

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 Speedy close as a hoax. Articles were created solely by sockpuppets of a user previously blocked for the related hoax. The socks have been blocked. The mentioned articles will be Deleted and Salted. — CactusWriter | needles 08:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strutt Family Trust

Strutt Family Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
The Strutt Family Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
-- Nearly duplicate article added for closing admin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is unclear whether this is notable as I am unable to find any reliable sources. Several sources are cited in the article, but they are either not specific enough, don't mention the subject of the article, or are press releases. I am also nominating The Strutt Family Trust(IT694/2002) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is an almost identical article. snigbrook (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's more, which I'll try and add (although, as mentioned, some of the other articles have been deleted, so I can't get to the history). --Bfigura (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SALT, and open a sockpuppet investigation. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69/Archive, which indicates that the entire purpose of a bunch of previous SPAs, including a permablocked one called User:Strutt Family Trust, was to document the existence of one Helen Anne Petrie. This individual is the topic of reference #9 of the above-captioned article, which is a press release that could apparently have been uploaded by anyone; note that the small print at the bottom indicates that this is the subject of a complaint to the UK Press Complaints Commission, but my search of that site indicates no such complaint. The lawyer mentioned does seem to exist, although I'm unable to determine if the Zairean registry in which I found her name is open to additions by the general public. Note that there are a number of SPAs associated with this page and its associated redirects; this seems to be the same pattern as noted in the sockpuppet investigation linked above. As per the above, of the 9 references provided with this article, nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are press releases, nos. 7 and 8 don't seem to mention the topic but a subsidiary, and no. 2 returns nothing of use. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another SPA, User:Mariana Gioribini, Milano, has just added some completely unrelated material about celebrity charities (which I've removed); I urge that any references added from now on by anyone be thoroughly assessed for their validity and quality. I'm expecting that there will be a number of other contributions by variously-named SPAs before we're through with this article. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete and Salt I have physically telephoned and checked, the lawyer in South Africa does exist there is a recorded complaint at the UK PCC. This can be a useful site that can expand nicely for charities. I am NOT another SPA with interest in The Strutt Family Trust

Mariana Gioribini, Milano (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the existence of a recorded complaint is relevant. The question is whether the trust is notable, which is established by multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. It's not clear what you're trying to assert. --Bfigura (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete or SALT I do not have any interest in the trust, just an interesting page that can be expanded on to become a useful resource and platform for other charities and trusts and who are we to decide if something is notable or not ? In india we have had some imput from the trust, that is why I added my references. I think you are just being overly nasty, or against someone who is actually doing good with their fundsImran Ghovender Patel (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read up on what constitutes a SPA, which youBfiguraare blatantly accusing me and others of being. It seems that you are not adhering to the Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards CODE, boasting that you have deleted 20 000 profiles on your link.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran Ghovender Patel (talk • contribs)

I'll AGF and assume this is a coincidence then. Although I'm curious to know where I've boasted that I've "deleted 20 000 profiles". Especially since I don't think I have 20,000 edits, much less deletions, especially given that I'm not an admin. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I'm the administrator to which reference is made here -- although it's more like 25,000, because I haven't updated that box in a while. I assume good faith wherever it's reasonable to do so, and recommend that policy to everyone. But since your account was created very recently and at this point in time has made no edits to any articles other than ones mentioned on this page, I stand by my definition of SPA. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also once again had a proper read through the page and done various google searches, the 2 named beneficiaries are elderly people, what would they stand to gain or loose, the gentleman is going on 77 years of age ? If there was a problem with any association I see mentioned to helen anne petrie I am sure that if this was a sockpuppet or worth of being salted there would not have been mention on her in the the controversey section.Mariana Gioribini, Milano (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Apology, i was referring to "Accounting4Taste"--Imran Ghovender Patel (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that this SPA has very recently tried to edit out references to sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69/Archive, so I'll ask any admins concerned in this to have a good close look at the edit histories of everything concerned. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment'no need to delete or salt in my personal opinion, but what do I know ? I was the one who added the link for Mr Strutt as I believe that making more information available on this elderly gentleman can do no harm, especially as I am aware of certain activities of the trust. You claim, by your username to be “accounting 4 taste”. With all due respect, what is a tasteful thing to do is allow charities, foundations and trusts to receive the exposure they deserve, especially under todays financial climate, globally. Things may not be bad in Vancouver, however, have you ever been anywhere near the good work some people do ? Do you spondor projects feeding the hungry and homeless in South Africa and Zimbabwe or Rwanda ? So, before “throwing stones” at people, have a good look at your own glass house…. And think of those who do not even have that , BUT , with the generosity of people like Mr Strutt and many others, actually have a warm plate of food to eat… THAT, is ACCOUNTING FOR TASTE !--Michelle De Waal (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle, What else can anyone say ? IT IS WHAT IT IS, LIKE THE NAZI PARTY HERE. Wikipedia says it has 10,872,278 registered users, YET 1,691 administrators. There you have your answer. Taste seems to very rare, like respect or good manners.--Mariana Gioribini, Milano (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


DO NOT DELETE To whom this may be of interest. This may not be a notable trust to you, but to us here in South Africa it is,and a important 1. You all sit so far away and judge on us and on our Continents, without having any reason to do like this. I am NOT A SOCK PUPPET, I am not a puppet or a muppet of any kind, I am a qualified registered nurse that work voluntarily to assist in my free time to care for dying AIDS orphans and my name is Thandi Malekweni. We run AIDS ORPANAGE here near the Cape Town airport in South Africa. Mrs Strutt is one of our benefactors, indirectly via The Strutt Family Trust.She and MrStrutt come visit and hold the dying babies, they not need do this, they have many big houses and much money to do nothing, but they come to help us and many other charities, he is old and not drive very good, but he comes to bring his wife. Encouraging people to help us, and other dying children institutions was part of why I also added information, possibly duplicating things. In 7 months we will have 6 million people coming here for a great event, FIFA2010, but, 1 month later they will depart and everything will return to normal, but charities like us need every gift we can get and The Strutt Family Trust are one of our largest supporters. Your comments also relate to mention of a lady Anne Petrie. If bother to do google search PROPERLY, you will find that her Estate also helped our charity, she leave many millions in her will to Mixed Race nursing home. To delete this pages or the pages attached to it will not be nice for us or other charities the Trust Supports. I know that they assist needy pensioners, The Red Cross Childrens Hospital, the ONLY PROPER Chlidrens Hospital in the Southern Hemisphere and the patron of the hospital is Princes Anne of England. I used the username I know I would remember, of Aldeth olive. I hope that my making a comment will help you make up your mind. Thandi--Aldeth olive (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Huh. Funny, the only reliable source I can find on her is this one: [1] (times of london), which says "Both the Royal Collection and Bonhams, the London auctioneers, were hoodwinked over a painter called Helen Anne Petrie who may never have existed." No mention of charities. Interesting, no? --Bfigura (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69 concerning the listed accounts. — CactusWriter | needles 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers do not always just say good things if it does not meet with story they write. Also, when they have to make retraction they do not make that on internet. Here is 1 article from newspaper her in Southt Africa that shows they were not telling lie. When Madonna come take babies from Malawi what do they say ? She is good mother who can make good life for poor child OR she come to “buy” again a baby from poor people ? No ? No one is so stupid to believe everything they read in newspaper ? Mr. Bush and Blair say weapons of mass destruction , so , they make war. Sadam is killed Etc. but where are the “famous” weapons ? If you want be so narrow minded to believe in newspapers or everything in news then I am sorry for you because that is what news and newspapers do, especially if it will help to make extra 100 000 copies sell. Sunday Times say artist never existed, but she did, here, look, I not lie… like Sunday Times, e weeks after Sunday Times makes lies the truth comes out http://www.paarlpost.com/cgib/article?newsid=16027 --Aldeth olive (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is actually quite weird. If you look at the sources thrown up by a Google search, most are press releases or press release-type articles hosted on self-publishing sites and several of these almost look doctored to get the Trust's name in afterwards. For example, this one is supposedly about the Trust's investment in British American Tobacco, but the article is amateurish and the only mention of the Trust is in the title, where the words "Strutt Family Trust (IT694/2002) invests heavily in" have been tacked on to the beginning of the first sentence with no attempt even to adjust the grammar to make it read correctly. I can't find a single primary or secondary source that provides any concrete, authoritative information at all about this organisation, so by definition it fails WP:N. And the support above, which appears to boil down to "we want this article in order to provide a platform for charity fundraising", does not address doubts about notability or verifiability. The Times online article cited by Bfigural is the nearest you get to a solid source. Interesting that it's all about a hoax. Sockpuppet investigation probably a good idea. Karenjc 21:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, and wash the socks. ThemFromSpace 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that 194.230.146.43 is also the same but has not been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69. MuZemike 02:19, 31 October 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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strutt_Family_Trust