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 and move. With a large contingent also supporting a move to be focused on the case rather than the company, there is no reason to delete sourced material that just needs to be reworked to suit. kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kleargear[edit]

Kleargear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This feels like more of a WP:BLP1E situation than a real long-term article on the company. As before, failed WP:ORG, WP:NOTNEWS among other issues. The last discussion was at the height of the controversy and I think with the passage of time, we can review things more clearly. If not delete, then maybe a rename to the litigation itself (Palmer vs. Kleargear.com) which I doubt is notable either. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The company is only notable for that one notorious case, but generally people only remember the company rather than the case name. My take is to rename to the case name, with Kleargear redirected there. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/refactor to Palmer v. Kleargear.com or a similar title. Unless Wikipedia has started recognizing Corporate personhood (and if that's the case, I missed the memo.) WP:BLP1E is inapplicable. I think there's an excellent chance that Kleargear is only notable for the case, though, and given the case really the subject of the coverage, a rename is warranted. WP:NOTNEWS is interesting here, but the most relevant guidance is really at WP:EVENT. There, we do have some international coverage, so WP:GEOSCOPE is modestly satisfied, WP:DEPTH as well, there is modest WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and given a possible appeal, it's difficult to estimate the chances of any possible WP:LASTING effect, some sort of precedent is plausible here given the novelty of the case, but far from assured. In short, we're left with a judgement call, and in view of those metrics, I lean toward retaining content per WP:PRESERVE, and titling it properly to correct issues of WP:UNDUE weight. If this is moved, I believe a redirect would be appropriate per usual practice. If there is a valid user for userfication, that would be my second choice in order to preserve content should an appeal to the Circuit Court happen. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously significant discussion from a multitude of secondary sources that satisfy both WP:RS and WP:V, and such references are located in multiple locations around the world. — Cirt (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wrong argument Company is not notable clearly fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG .The company is a very small one and company size was not criteria for inclusion as per closing admin.All coverage is only for the Case.A legal case about a company does not make the company notable as per WP:INHERITORG and WP:CRIME does not apply here.WP:NOTNEWS applies here the wide coverage it only for the case and not the company.DiMaria999 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC) — DiMaria999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename - ridiculously notable, clearly not the least bit deletable. However, I concur with Joe Decker's renaming arguments and Zhanzhao's redirect suggestion - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Deletion IMHO notable per basic WP:GNG. There very well could be merit to a rename.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Fails WP:Org ,WP:Notnews and WP:GNG.It has attracted news coverage due to the controversy but that does not make it pass WP:GNG.It was Kept, without any prejudice against opening another AfD after the current controversy has faded as per Closing admin in last AFD.DiMaria999 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC) — DiMaria999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename as suggested above, or perhaps merge into an existing article that talks about the topic (Censorship in the United States, Freedom of Speech in the United States, ...). -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename - Case was cited and discussed in the May 2014 issue of the American Bar Association's GPSOLO eReport as one of two examples of emerging litigation related to "Nondisparagement Clauses" in consumer contracts.
  Davis, N. C., Eskin, V. L., Catanzano, R. A., Vercammen, K., Axelrod, S. L., Romberg, S. L., ... & Firm, L. (2014). "The Yelper and the Negative Review: the Developing Battle Over Nondisparagement Clauses". GPSOLO eReport, May 2013, Vol 3 No. 10 p3-5.
  SBaker43 (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Joe Decker. There's a lot here, though it's fairly recentist for my tastes, it's clearly notable. The WP:EVENT concern... meh... it's real, I'll grant that, but it's got the coverage to at least push it towards the "likely to be notable" side. That said, it was a default judgment, and any remaining contentious parts of the case will probably deal with boring, hashed-out civil procedure issues with no lasting effect. And really... even if we got a nice substantive decision on contract law, is it likely to do much other than discuss the enforceability of penalty clauses? But that's all speculation, and I could honestly be really wrong. In short, I think WP:GNG is met, and that's enough for me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename -For all the reasons cited above. It's obvious. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename—not much else to add that hasn't been said better already. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Delay I'm not really sure enough time has passed here, since the events seem to be continuing to unfold (the most recent event in the article is only a few weeks ago), so it's hard to tell how sustained the coverage is going to be in the future. That said, Kleargear by itself doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, and I honestly think the legal case wouldn't, either. I think we should either delete it now until it becomes notable or, if we decide to keep, we should again keep with no prejudice against re-nominating after the actual case has finished unfolding. I would lean towards deleting, because we generally don't keep articles up for things in case they might become notable in the future. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. The company is not notable, but the case is. It's had substantial coverage beyond the WP:NOTNEWS threshold in Business week, Techdirt, and non-local news providers (for example, Houston and US News and World Report), as well as the source cited by SBaker43, above. Move to Palmer v. Kleargear.com to make the article name conform to the topic and content. TJRC (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Delete The Company is not notable fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG why should it be kept ? Further William Franklin Bermender has nothing to do with Kleargear controversy why has his NAME been put up he quit in 2007 .MOST OF THEM VOTING KEEP ARE NOT SAYING THE COMPANY IS NOTABLE ONLY THE CASE IS PLEASE DELETE AND REWRITE AN ARTICLE ON THE CASE.5.104.108.125 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Deletion debate is only about the Company and it fails WP:GNG not on the case if you want to rename do it in Wikipedia:Requested moves not in WP:AFD.PLEASE DELETE IT the issue about the company not the case. 5.104.108.125 (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As you are a new editor, who has only ever edited on this topic, and who has a very clear opinion about a subject who is not currently mentioned in the article... well, I have to recommend you read WP:PSCOI to determine whether some of it applies to you, as you, as a completely new editor, are likely unaware of it. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; the most important reasons to move the article, rather than delete it and recreate it with the new name (as championed by 5.104.108.125 and perhaps DiMaria999) are: 1) obvious waste of effort doing that. It's foolish to delete an article already written, only to re-write it trying to obtain the same content about the case; rather than pruning the existing article of bits that do not pertain to the case. 2) Doing so would violate WP:CC-BY-SA, which requires maintaining the list of contributors to the article. TJRC (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename: extended coverage of the legal case is sufficient for notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.