Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleargear


 * 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. Consensus appears to be in favor of keeping the article and article as it stands does not appear to be a violation of WP:LIBEL. I am less inclined to believe the arguments that it seriously merits inclusion because of the company's size, but the other arguments about having attracted news coverage seem to fit the bill. Kept, without any prejudice against opening another AfD after the current controversy has faded. NW ( Talk ) 06:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Kleargear

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG ,WP:NOTNEWS ,WP:Libel and article was created with edit summary Kleargear extortion and it is basically about a story of a women being fined for posting a negative review. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how this fails WP:Libel - perhaps some clarity on the matter, since the details are sourced? Additionally, whilst this does detail to the tune of WP:NOTNEWS, the article can and will be expanded to include general retailer information, in the vein on ThinkGeek and other online retail brands listed on Wikipedia.

Stuart Steedman (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment:The article is clearly defamatory and clearly lacks WP:RS sources.This source is user generated and from Ripoff Report where anyone can file a post free, un-moderated and uncorroborated complaint against anyone and similar is the case with Popehat a legal blog and Boing Boing is a blog  which merely states the incident.Further large sections are unsourced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Standard outrage-of-the-day article on PR nightmare that went viral on blogs and tabloids.  It will be forgotten in a few days, just like Ocean Marketing/Ocean Stratagy (sic)/Paul Christoforo.  This is a clear attack article, and the subject is not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. : Tentative. A quick search on Google News shows that this is getting quite significant exposure if not coverage. It does need a good cleanup though. I've tried to address WP:RS by adding in more credible sources especially in the areas where citations were requested. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Kleargear is VERY clearly an ongoing fraud on the public and anybody attempting to censor the truth under these circumstances should be considered a part of the conspiracy. This is as bad as it gets and if Wiki fails here it is "good" for absolutely fuk all because its the crooks controlling content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

ANYBODY arguing against the very clear fact that this is a criminal fraud is either completely and fully retarded or part of the criminal conspiracy. The facts have been proven beyond any possible doubt. Censorship under these circumstances is an offense against the public good, something CERTAINLY not envisioned in the creation of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.164.215 (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment We WIkipedia are not a Consumer forum to campaign  against any company.  Wikipedia is not a Newspaper and all references solely focus on the incident and not on the company.It still clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:ORG .Even this  | Reference makes The case for reading the Small print focus that consumers need to read the terms and conditions and also quoted the example of GameStation.com rather than the company most of the other references are from customer activism sites.As NinjaRobotPirate rightly points there is nothing to state this incident will have long lasting impact and is mere news.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"WE"? Tell us some more about what Wiki ISN'T.

You never bothered to check any of the details one iota yet you sit in judgement and censor the truth? This is a public fraud issue. An obvious and ONGOING fraud on the public. That means that even now, this very second, a criminal is ripping people off ... perhaps your grandmother, or your neighbor.

Censorship of the truth is good for what reason again?

This is an example of internet fraud by an scam business and it is hurting innocent people every day. How DARE somebody spew about how this that or the other thing "fails" when they are too lazy to determine what the facts are?

I read recently that editors on Wiki have dropped 70% over 10 years and are now 92% male. NOBODY is attracted to Wiki because its become a little dopey bum patting club of ego driven censors, not contributors.

Given this outrage I won't even bother with Wiki again either. Its a waste of time. Sad for the public, sad for gramma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.153.242.30 (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

So we swallowed our disgust, again, and reported the FACT that KlearGear is advertising on Google. Surprisingly, the censor "Pharaoh of the Wizards" has removed a very simple question from his talk page without taking the minimal effort at answering it. Yet another case of censorship and how is it even possible to whallow with these types on a daily basis?

"Censorship of questions[edit] "You deleted a simple question. I asked you why you would censor the copious work of another without bothering to even check the references first. (and request an entire delete) So your censorship extends to the very simple questions about your actions from other users? That is getting really, really whacko. "
 * Reply This Edit was reverted by me clearly is a violation of WP:BLP the name ,address and phone number of a lawyer is given whom you accuse of issuing the letters and threatening collection action.It also clears to adhere by WP:NPOV policy and lacks WP:RS sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The name, address, phone number and everything else related to this professional individual is public domain and was retrieved from fully public sources that are available to anyone with an extra 10 seconds on their hands. So this info is verbotten on Wiki? I have attempted MULTPLE times to phone him and every other PoS associated with KlearGear without any result whatever. What has this censor done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Further - I haven't "accused" a lawyer of "issuing the letters and threatening collection action". I'm stating it as a pure, rock solid 100% guaranteed certain fact. (and the reference to that fact was deleted along with it.) This discourse is like arguing with a child. One will never "win". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment::Please go through this WP:BLPPRIVACY articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons on Wikipedia . Further none of the sources say here  he issued  threatening collection action letters.Your edits were reverted by editors only because they  did not  or rather violated the Policies and Guidelines of Wikipedia Sorry if appears  otherwise to you.I leave it to the closing admin to take a call.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is entirely moot. The POINT here is that censorship of a critical issue to the public good should NOT be made in a split second, BEFORE a single reference is checked. That is what occurred here. You can go back on the many details and attempt to justify that instant judgement call after the fact all you like. It is APPEARING Wiki is a little boys bum patting club with multitudes hunting for the next "badge" while peeing on the public good from a position of admitted ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

MORE censorship ... this time a very direct, very relevant quote from "Ripoff.com" gets zapped but lets call it "tidying up" shall we? Did this censor spend the less than 3 seconds it takes to notice the endorsements on this insulting frauds' website right this bloody, damn second? kleargear.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.171.20 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC) ONE contributor over the past 10 days and 6 censors. True Story. Errr zero contributors now. I love Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.87.20 (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Now even the useless comments here are being censored from existence. I simply related that there is mega large news for Kleargear today and since there are ZERO contributors left, where are ANY of the 6 censors to let the public know? Off censoring others of course. Its laughable if it wasn't soooooo sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.171.20 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

And the news? How silly dilly of me. A Washington based consumer group is suing these K9s. http://neer-do-well-hall-of-infamey.blogspot.ca/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.171.20 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The 6 censors have chased the one poster away. BIG NEWS on Kleargear today and WHO is telling the public?

Nada Wiki censors ... no badges in helping the public avoid a scam. Ppppppfffffffft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoxxman (talk • contribs) 06:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep and continue clean up. Plenty of notable coverage in the news.  --George100 (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue cleanup. WP:ORG No. The company was notable with significant sales(40 million annual) and position in market before the events took place. WP:NOTNEWS No. A five year old event is hardly breaking news and it also shows the controversy isn't going away.WP:Libel   No.  Libel means false, the events are not in question and are not even denied by the company.  The article does need cleaning, i'll try to address the more egregious ones.  RJFlorida (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC) — RJFlorida (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So the censor who wants this item pulled and has deleted everything while contributing nothing over weeks has won an award badge for his many efforts. Same censor who removes simple questions from his talk page and is STILL pushing for complete censorship of the whole smoozle ... even when it would be IMPOSSIBLE to deny this enterprise is a wicked large SCAM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.171.20 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The Company did receive a lot of coverage and a PR nightmare but solely for the fine imposed on the customer .It is for this reason that a admin did not Speedy the article and suggested AFD. Almost entire article is about the fine and the non-disparagement clause  and most of the the sources are from Consumer activist sites  and speak only about the fine and are from Nov 2013.There is little coverage beyond this and the company fails  WP:NOTNEWS and there is nothing to state the Company is notable beyond this Fine issue and it fails WP:ORG. Large sections of the article lack WP:RS sources and some of them with consumer activism sites negative material needs to [WP:LIBEL| be referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.]  Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Further one editor has attempted to contact the company and its  lawyer and then posts the Lawyer address,email and phone on in violation of BLPPRIVACY stating he issued threatening notices with no sources and the a lawyer can sue Wikipedia for this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

And STILL this censor is arguing nonsense. (but HE has a badge now tee hee) Does this censor deny that Kleargear is a scam? Has this censor done any due diligence? (a phone call?)
 * You forget that Wikipedia does not permit original research, so "due diligence" and "phoning" are strongly against Wikipedia policy.
 * Stuart Steedman (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This censor deleted EVERYTHING and has contributed nothing ... even to this second. Why then is the reward a "badge"?

I would also very much like to know why this censor STILL opposes this material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.48.54 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete fails WP:ORG] and [[WP:ONEEVENT.128.107.239.234 (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Week Keep - Has more than enough notable, third party, non-trivial coverage to surpass Wikipedia standard rules on notability. I personally think those rules are too generous, but you have to go with how they are written and how they've been applied to other deletion discussions to be fair instead of singling this article out because you don't like it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for the moment. This certainly attracting some attention in the mainstream press right now, thought the storm may well blow over soon, at which point consensus may change. I note that WP:ONEEVENT applies to people, not businesses. Dolescum (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for now: relevant, and the company had sufficient turnover as to be a recognized player in the online retail space. Also a good example for Streisand Effect to link to  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssteedman (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 November 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.