Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 30 June 2014

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Palmer v. Kleargear.com. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Palmer v. Kleargear.com at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Business Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Coming to a consensus on this article

Personally I think an AfD nomination for "delete" would have been justified. Kleargear, as a company, aren't really notable enough to have their own article. I for one had not heard of KG before this whole thing even blew up.

However, I think both the people calling ZOMG WIKIPEDIA CENSORS EVERY111!!!1 and the people wanting coverage of the Kleargear controversy (by the way Misplaced Pages is NOT a newspaper!) could both have their way by renaming the article to something along the lines of 2013 Kleargear controversy?

I must also admit WP:NPOV did come to mind the second I finished reading. It's very one sided and not encyclopedic in tone at all. The fact it's also orphaned should also give some idea of its' non-notability.☭ cmn ☭ ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 19:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of important concepts in this article , and news media continue to raise them (with reference to klear gear). I think the solution is cleaning up and improving, not deleting. The company is part of a greater issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.205.194 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Added a link from Striesand effect

Using this case as an example. Is one enough to remove the orphan note? Uneffect (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one link is enough for it to no longer be an orphan. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This text:

The public backlash against KlearGear's actions are an example of the Streisand effect.

...hardly seems backed up by reality, Kleargear is still doing large volume business, and has recently reintroduced the offending policy. So exactly what "backlash"? They pissed off a bunch of Slashdot readers and made the national media, but "backlash"? Not much, really. Taco Viva (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not even sure if the clauses in their terms are even legal. Something gives me a feeling that we will see mpre about this company in the future thqn this one instance of possibly fraudulant charges. 98.117.83.122 (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

CEO

I notice that someone would like to change the name of the CEO based on a citation to Ripoff Report. We need a better source than this, as Ripoff Report is an even worse source than CNN iReport. I'm not entirely sure that we should even be listing any names if those are the best sources available. I'll see what I can find. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I was able to locate a source from 2012 that identifies Gersten as the President. Unreliable sources, such as blogs and random affiliate websites, seem to connect Bermender in some way to Kleargear. Until we can get a reliable source that conclusively connects him in a direct way (preferably with a specific job title), I would oppose the inclusion of his name. Our job is to neutrally provide verifiable facts cited to reliable sources, not name-and-shame possibly unrelated persons. These additions arguably violate our policy on biographies of living persons. If the problematic edits continue, I will seek page protection for this article again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Retard. There are DOZENS of references to the main crook, who is William Franklin Bermender. I have heard Kleargear has hired admins and that is why no truth is allowed. It sure appears that way based on this level of censorship while the public gets screwed openly by a criminal.

• Start-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• Start-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles