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:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Using this case as an example. Is one enough to remove the orphan note? Uneffect (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This text:
...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)
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)
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)
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)