Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kluger


 * 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   keep. KTC (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Adam Kluger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Duplicate in subject matter of existing article The Kluger Agency. There has been a long history of these being created as self-promotion and then deleted, so a re-creation of this page is not desirable. K7L (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Previous postings of the article under this name pre-date Kluger being named one of Forbes' magazine's 30 under 30. Kluger was the one named 30 under 30 not his agency. This is also an entirely different article from prior articles, which were written by somebody else. The material was not written in relation to the Agency's article's copy. Previous deletions of the Adam Kluger page were based upon unambiguous advertising, which this article does not have. The article also focuses on Kluger's career as a businessperson, not the story of the Agency, which is written differently on the Kluger Agency page. As an individual, Adam Kluger passes the notability requirements of Wikipedia. You could make an argument for changing the content, but not that Kluger is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page at this time. The repetitive material is not copied over, and in my opinion is there only to provide a bit of additional explanation to the page. Stating that prior article attempts didn't work out, thus a new one cannot be desirable, isn't a good argument for deletion in my mind. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's nothing here to establish notability for this person for anything except The Kluger Agency, which already has an article. If Forbes mentioned this person, it is in connection with all of the advertising which The Kluger Agency is passing off as music video content. The same article just written differently is a duplicate and adds nothing of value. K7L (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Response: Forbes did not "mention" him, he called him one of the thirty most important figures in the global music industry under the age of 30, an honour mostly bestowed on those that have mammoth Wikipedia pages :) Also, read BLP notability policy please. Start with Notability_(people)'s clause that a subject can "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" if you want to look at him in the entertainment industry. Or try Notability_(music) if you want to call him a music industry member, where he "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". Or we can go with Notability_(people), where "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" or "The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications". Or we can go with Notability_(people), where "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times", being named a 30 under 30 by FORBES MAGAZINE!!!. Or lets just go with the basic criteria "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." These sources have been added. How many eligibility requirements do you need before you decide to arbitrarily nominate an article for deletion less that two minutes after it was posted. There is no possible way you could have read the article and checked the references I was talking about before you nominated this article :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak weak keep. A long Businessweek article and a few mentions in Forbes (30 under 30 and this quote) plus some odds and sods from less reliable places just barely push him over the bar. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * weak keep I do not accept the inclusion of "30 under 30" as indicating anything like notability. notability is not age dependent. Forbes may thing it interesting, but it has nothing to do with notability for an encyclopedia. However, now that we will apparently have this article, some of the material about him as an individual can appropriately be removed from the article on his company to avoid duplication.  DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 7 January 2013 (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.