Talk:Palmer v. Kleargear.com

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. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 19 November 2013 (UTC), see discussion.
keep and move, 3 July 2014 (UTC), see discussion.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. 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 articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

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

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removed raising of ethical questions language

I removed the language regarding the 'raising of ethical questions' section here. The article quotes a single attorney who offers an opinion. At best, we could say that a single attorney thinks the clause is unenforceable but it seems extraneous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I further streamlined the criticism section to remove a bit of trivia, such as same attorney's comments about Kleargear's headquarters, how they never showed up in court (that's what a default judgment is), etc. I also combined a few related paragraphs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of both article and talk page

Both this article and this talk page has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]