Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kluger Agency

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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kluger Agency

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

Deletion request requested on otrs by the owner of the company, as the article is not neutral and biased by a competitor or otherwise a person in conflict with the company. For otrs users, see ticket #2012082910000239 for more information. Edoderoo (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed request: There is no article named See otrs for you to delete on the English-language Wikipedia. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have refactored the AfD to use the AfD templates, and will move it to the correct name. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. :) Comment: This page was one of three (Adam Kluger, Kluger Agency, The Kluger Agency) created by single-purpose account user:keywordrenewals in 2008, soon after this company was established, as a promotional advertisement. The other two pages in this set were redirected or speedily deleted (repeatedly in the case of the promotional bio on Adam Kluger) and the articles have a long history of WP:COI editing by Kluger on various IP's to remove any unfavourable information about the company added by other editors. One of these IP's posted in 2009 "the reason our campaigns are so effective is due to our discreet nature. We do not want the public knowing what brand is paying for what. Everything is meant to be natural and we hope you respect that." as "Erin Rogers, PUBLIC RELATIONS The Kluger Agency", an issue in both WP:OWN and WP:COI terms. The issues have been ongoing with this article for almost as long as there has been a Kluger Agency but have been mostly under the radar as the pages were edited relatively infrequently. I am an involved editor at this point insofar as I've tried to remove blatantly-promotional language (the original pretty much claimed Kluger invented "brand dropping" as product placement in music videos, which contradicts the cited sources), reinstate material which had been repeatedly removed by the Kluger IP's, insert material which is in Kluger's cited sources but not in the article (such as names of products and songs/musicians promoting them, as well as the amount of money changing hands), nominate re-creation attempts for the Adam Kluger promotional bio for {{db-promo}} and bring the question of repeated deletion of info to the attention of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#The Kluger Agency. I would strongly advise a look through the history of these pages, the associated talkpages, edits to related articles (such as product placement or the individual musicians affected) and WP:COI/N as the issues are ongoing. As of yesterday, the article is semi-protected with at least one Kluger WP:SPA account and one of the IP's temporarily blocked for section or page blanking. Only now that Kluger can no longer anonymously edit the page is anyone hearing "the owner of this company wants the article deleted". While I do not work for anyone in the advertising business and have no horse in this race, at this point I've been looking at this mess for long enough that it becomes difficult to assume good faith from the IP/SPA's which are only hitting this page or this topic, so perhaps this is a good time for someone else to take an uninvolved look at the one remaining page from a set of three created for all the wrong reasons and problematic ever since. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A related discussion is open on Commons:project:Deletion requests/File:The Kluger Agency Logo.png regarding whether this agency's logo should be removed from Commons as a non-free image. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability established, good referencing, though the text is a bit too promotional.Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: It's not clear to me what grounds this was nominated for deletion under - the subject is notable, and there have been some problems with Pro- and Anti- IPs edit warring - but I can't see how that's grounds for deletion... Fayedizard (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A failed {{unblock}} request on user talk:184.32.125.150 claims "Two emails have been sent to info-en-q @ wikipedia.org as a major contributor to this article is clearly writing defamitory information..." where that IP had already blanked the entire page; info-en-q is one of the addresses listed for Wikipedia:Contact OTRS as "handles issues regarding an article that is written about you or a group you are affiliated with". That said, however, I cannot confirm that the blocked user claiming to have e-mailed the OTRS help desk is the author of this specific OTRS ticket as the OTRS process provides some level of confidentiality. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominators reason is invalid. We do not delete articles because the "subject" isn't happy with the content. If the Kruger Agency wants a positive article, they need to do less to create controversy.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above two comments, I think it is reasonable for an OTRS agent to start an AfD discussion to help resolve an OTRS inquiry even if its pretty clear that the result will not be deletion. I suggest letting the discussion go at least a regular listing period so that it can be said we had a full discussion and reached the decision, what ever it is. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Monty, you are right. I nominated "in the name of" the person who contacted us over OTRS. I usually work on the :nl Dutch wiki, and I will stay neutral in this case, and will only act or comment as a kind of advocate over OTRS. If I will bring in information, this is not my personal opinion, but to serve the interest of the owner of The Kluger Agency. OTRS users can follow this on the above mentioned ticket. 57.67.146.81 (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase that a little bit - it should have been "Because there isn't a given policy reason to argue, it's difficult to make an opposing case - " I absolutely think the OTRS agent did the right thing. Fayedizard (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One question: is it appropriate to allow blocked users to nominate articles for deletion by using OTRS to circumvent the inability to make the nomination while blocked? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not appropriate. OTRS is an helpdesk, I did create this nomination as I did not expect the creator of the ticket would have experience on Wikipedia to create the nomination theirselves. Blocked users are experienced, and users first of all. But it is unlikely that people will abuse OTRS for that. Edoderoo (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This article has adequate sourcing that supports the notability of the organization. No reason it should be deleted simply because the owner doesn't want the negative information that he has tried to remove by edit-warring and vandalizing with several socks. Cresix (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Company meets notability guidelines and was only AfD'd because of negative information in the article. That's not a valid reason. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2012 (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.