Talk:Adam Kluger/Archives/2013

Merge?

• I see that another editor has tagged this as {{merge}} to The Kluger Agency. I support this as Adam Kluger is not notable for anything other than TKA, therefore WP:BLP1E. This article is a re-creation of one already speedily deleted as advertising and the copyright status of the image very questionable given the concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 16#File:Adam_Kluger_picture.png (it came from BusinessWeek, Kluger claims to have bought and released the image, the pro photographer who took the shot says the opposite). Remove the possible copyvios and self-promotional spam and there's nothing left that isn't in The Kluger Agency. K7L (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Definitely no from me, this seems to simply be a continuation of the solved deletion debate. No need to try a backdoor to eliminating the piece here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Questionable sources

This is not permitted as a source:

• ^ Ruban Corbo (July 6, 2011). "Interview with 25 year-old CEO Adam Kluger of The Kluger Agency". Examiner.

The URL was deliberately omitted, but is www.examiner.com/article/interview-with-25-year-old-ceo-adam-kluger-of-the-kluger-agency - a link which has long been on Wikipedia's blacklists. There are various newspapers named "examiner" in various towns, but "examiner.com" is misleading as it's not affiliated with any of them and is actually not a local newspaper anywhere.

• Jump up ^ "Kluger Agency Raises the Bar for Video Brand Placement". The Comet. June 24, 2011. Retrieved January 3, 2013.

redirects to www.facebook.com/CometMusicposts/kluger_agency_raises_the_bar_for_video_brand_placement (facebook? again, not a valid WP:RS) which fails with a big fat 404 error.

There might be a few valid sources, but those are already citied and summarised in The Kluger Agency so the info here is redundant. More problematically, claims like "In addition to serving as CEO of his own company, he manages musical artists individually" are not supported by the cited source, which indicates he's "managing" to insert advertising as content, not that he's a tour manager for any band. K7L (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, there are plenty of sources here. There was a previous deletion debate that resulted in the article being kept. Articles used in this piece are generally different than those of the Agency piece. The Forbes article especially shows him as independently notable. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources are either the same as the other article or are invalid items like "examiner.com". We also do not need two articles on the same topic. Forbes does not have him as notable for anything other than The Kluger Agency, which already has a page. These should be merged. K7L (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This argument was already settled in AFD. There's no more support for continuing your campaign against the article. The merge suggestion was placed a long time ago now and there is no support for it, so the template should be removed instead of remaining at the top in perpetuity because one or two people think that maybe, some day, far into the future, there might be a consensus to get rid of this article :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The AFD shows you as the only one expressing more than "weak" support for keeping this text in *any* article, but that's a different question from the issue of whether we want or need two articles on the same topic. The text you've added recently does nothing to establish the notability of Adam Kluger outside The Kluger Agency as the article is not about Adam Kluger and only contains a passing mention. You still haven't addressed the issue of examiner.com not being a valid source. It's on the blacklist. K7L (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to address anything. We're not arguing about anything substantial. You believe there shouldn't be an article here; no one agrees with you to the point of consensus. Please stop trolling this article and trying to force a back door to deletion. Notability was handled at AFD. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

On another point, the two issues you had with sources have both been fixed now. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Adam Kluger and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

This page has already gone through the AFD process, I don't see a need to re-open something already closed. Jeremy112233, I do think if you could expand this article a bit some day in the future, it would help. But other editors have come before me and spoken, and I see no need to go against that. On the issue of sources, it appears that has already been remedied and they look fine to me. GRUcrule (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing the merge tag as there is no support here for the merge at this point. Over a month has past with no consensus to ignore the AFD result and merge, so I believe it is time to remove the flag at this point. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)