Talk:Klick (company)

Confusion
Hi TheTechie! Thanks for your feedback; although, I'm confused as there are 58 references, many of which are significant or in-depth coverage by independent, reliable global and business media or leading trade journals.There are also numerous industry-leading awards. This makes a strong case for notability, and I'd appreciate another review. Preceding transferred comment by Marisa at Klick 18:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  23:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Marisa at Klick You are free to resubmit and have a third opinion.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  23:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We're discussing it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#18:06,_9_May_2024_review_of_submission_by_Marisa_at_Klick. Marisa at Klick (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also being discussed at Teahouse. What the company and its senior management/founders say about itself should not be quoted and those references do not contribute to notability. i made some brutal deletions which in my opinion improve the potential for the draft's acceptance. David notMD (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Resubmission of tighter, better-sourced version (thanks!)
Hi Everyone,

Thank you for all of your feedback, analysis, and support. I've resubmitted a new version. Marisa at Klick (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Updated with recent awards
Hi Everyone,

We've updated the draft with 4 citations about recent awards. Looking forward to a review. Thanks much! Marisa at Klick (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I've taken in all of the advice I've received and made a lot of progress since the initial submission, by focusing on fewer and more significant, independent, and reliable sources. Would you please consider reviewing the draft again? Thanks so much! Marisa at Klick (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again, you were giving us really thoughtful advice and clear guidance and we've tried to follow it closely. We removed all non-significant, non-independent sources, and added numerous better citations. Would you be willing to please give us a fresh review based on NCORP? Thank you, and looking forward to your honest opinion! Marisa at Klick (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, you offered very constructive feedback at the Teahouse about this draft. Would you be willing to please review it with its recent (and major) changes? Thanks kindly, Marisa at Klick (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This reads much better now, to my eyes. Its acceptance will depend on convincing the reviewer that Klick meets WP:NCORP. It probably does, IMO, owing to the various awards which themselves have Wikipedia articles. These are much better than trying to "inherit notability" from Klick's client list. Many of the citations you have currently are based on interviews, which are therefore not WP:Independent of the company. That's OK for backing up simple facts but it would help the reviewer if you could highlight about three citations that really are independent (assuming you have them!). You could do that by adding a comment at the top of the draft along the lines of "see in particular cites #3, 8, 9" or whichever. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey again @Marisa at Klick. I think it now meets NORG, but my one bit of feedback is that the entire Operations section seems a bit clunkily worded, I would replace it with something like...
 *  Qcne  (talk)  15:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your excellent suggestions. I've implemented them. Would you feel comfortable reviewing the article one last time, and if you still think it meets NORG, consider moving it live? Thank you again very much! Marisa at Klick (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Marisa at Klick I think that puts it over the edge, I've accepted it. Please add some WP:CATEGORIES.  Qcne  (talk)  17:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Advertising and NPOV Tags
Hi Everyone. I'm really excited that the article is live. Now, I want to bring it up to the standards and expectations that will make it a great article.

I am a paid employee of Klick, as I immediately disclosed when I created my account. I used the paid contributor template on my user page, as @DoubleGrazing kindly requested.

I submitted my draft through Articles for Creation where it was reviewed and moved live by @Qcne with additional guidance from @Michael D. Turnbull.

I'm trying to understand the warnings added by @Gobonobo. I am not aware of what phrases, sentences, paragraphs, or other elements promote the subject beyond what the sources directly report. I don't see which words, sections, or sources are not in line with the Neutral Point of View policy. If you can please help me understand what justifies the warning tags, I'd greatly appreciate it, so that I can help address those issues.

Just a note: I originally submitted a much more complete draft that did not meet NORG, but I cut it way back at the recommendations of several editors. It's possible that the longer version, if incorporated, would make the article more balanced; although, I don't currently understand what in the article is advertising or non-neutral.

Thanks so much for your help and assistance. I appreciate your time and expertise. Marisa at Klick (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * . Please note that most Wikipedia editors are volunteers and that taking the time to process your requests and respond to your complaints takes away from the vital tasks of maintaining an encyclopedia. I would advise you to familiarize yourself with Conflict of interest and WP:NOPAY, our guideline about paid editors like yourself. If you have basic questions about what certain cleanup templates mean, our documentation is quite extensive, but if you have questions, you are welcome to bring them to the WP:TEAHOUSE. gobonobo  + c 00:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey @Marisa at Klick. My assessment, as accepting reviewer, is that the article is no longer written like an advert, but the fun thing about Wikipedia is that different editors can have different views. @Gobonobo would be worth getting your pov?  Qcne  (talk)  07:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I thought a three-sentence lead, where one of the sentences began "Klick has won multiple awards...", gave undue emphasis to that aspect and bordered on puffery. Few readers know what Cannes Lions is and advertising agencies are notorious for their self-congratulatory awards festivals and fawning media coverage of each other. The sentence "It is the world's largest, independent health agency" is misleading as it makes it sound as if Klick is a health care provider and critically omits the word advertising. The operations section just sandwiches a couple of quotes together, which seem cherry-picked to present the company in the most positive light possible.
 * Honestly, I worry that companies are simply incapable of writing their own Wikipedia articles in a manner that complies with our standards of neutrality. They are almost without exception biased, omit any negative coverage, and are laden with corporate adspeak jargon. I can see that Qcne did a good job of helping pare this down from a much worse original version, but I cannot help but imagine the difference between this and a neutral article written by an editor without a conflict of interest. Still, I don't see how we can fairly present an article like this to our readers as if it were written from a WP:NPOV without at least a warning to them that this article was written under the direction of the company by that's company's employee. gobonobo  + c 12:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expanding on your feedback, Gobonobo. I appreciate that you are a volunteer, and I have always been transparent that I am paid to work on this effort. I do understand this article is not your highest priority or any editor's responsibility.
 * As for the lead, I'm completely fine with modifying it to: "It is the world's largest, independent health [marketing] agency." The initial phrasing was not intended to deceive but to mirror the two sources that make the claim (sources: Strategy and Yale School of Management).
 * As for the article seeming positive, Klick hired an independent researcher to locate all news coverage of the company over 26 years: they found 70 potentially reliable sources. I added any criticism they found to our draft, including a negative story about HR concerns. There frankly isn't much negative coverage--which of course aligns with my professional interests, but it is also verifiable. You don't have to take my word for it; anyone can search Google (or your library) for Klick and terms like criticism, controversy, scandal, problem, incident, etc. If anyone finds anything in a reliable source, I support including it as part of NPOV.
 * I understand your concern about companies writing their own Wikipedia articles, and while acknowledging it, I am following what WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PSCOI state as policy and best practices. I do respect the rules, and the roles of volunteers, even if there's scrutiny about my motivations.
 * Thank you for your commitment to Wikipedia (it truly is amazing), and for all the help you've given me. Marisa at Klick (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)