Talk:Clickability

Deletion
This article maintains a neutral point of view, references its sources, is concise, concerns a company recently in the tech news, and involves a larger trend in the software and IT industry. It's not spam and doesn't require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Is there anything specific about the article that is unlike others of it's kind? Kawika (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have denied this CSD. This article seems fine to me. We're allowed to have articles about notable products and this doesn't seem to be over-the-top advertising. Oren0 (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Clickability domain is foisting itself into other domains via DNS hacks
Blocking clickability has resulted in more and more domain names becoming unavailable, as these web-spammers/admen have a scam going where they insert the clickability domain name server into the resolution scheme... for example, www.governing.com has a canonical name of c.clickability.com!!

Anyone have any recommendations on how to allow legitimate information thru at the DNS level, without the spam, malware, and other pushed content typically found on the rest of their adservers? Zaphraud (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Unused source
Moving here for storage: K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * John Wiley & Sons obtained this information and through their fact-checking and editorial process considered it reliable to publish. I consider information about the number of page views they have encyclopedic so oppose removing this information from the article. Cunard (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , in your edit here, you introduced errors that K.e.coffman had fixed. Please fix this. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the content about the page views. I added "According to John Wiley & Sons" and used "had" instead of "claimed". The source does not say "Clickability claimed 400 million page views", so that would be an inaccurate paraphrasing of the source. It is possible that the book used Alexa Internet or another service to derive that number. It is also possible that the source asked Clickability for that information. Since the book did not explain where it got that information, we cannot make any conclusions about their source. Cunard (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability tag
Articles for deletion/Clickability was closed as "no consensus". I don't think it is appropriate to leave the Notability tag on the article indefinitely when notability has been thoroughly discussed at AfD and no consensus has been reached.

From Template:Notability: "If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag. It is highly desirable, but not technically required, for you to add a list of good sources to the article or its talk page, so that other editors will know about the existence of these sources. If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group." I am "certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues". The purpose of the notability tag is to ask editors to determine whether a subject is notable. Since the tag led to an AfD, and there was no consensus in the AfD to delete the article, the tag should not be restored because notability has already been discussed. If anyone continues to believe the article is non-notable, as per Template:Notability, please either discuss on this talk page or renominate the article at AfD instead of repeatedly adding the tag. Cunard (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion closed as "No consensus", not as "Keep". Thus it's still appropriate to question the notability of the subject, as it was not positively established during the AfD. I'm further concerned about the removal, as the edits of the above editor have not demonstrated sufficient critical judgement and proper use of sources. See for example my comment ("according to the company" was conveniently left out) during the Appboy AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a similar discussion going on at Talk:E3_Media. The notability is specifically for cases where notability has not been determined. It should not be removed unless it has been demonstrated that the article is notable enough to deserve a separate article. Not every non-notable article is deleted. Sometimes, it can be merged to another article as well. Sometimes it may be renominated for an AfD later. Removing the notability tag is counterproductive here - it's like pretending that the problem is fixed when it hasn't. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If you still dispute notability, please either nominate the article for deletion or remove the tag as per Template:Notability. Leaving the tag on indefinitely without taking action on it is not appropriate. Nor is it appropriate to try to attack me by bringing up an unrelated situation, K.e.coffman. Cunard (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Are there legitimate concerns about the notability of the topic? Yes. Have those concerns been dealt with? No. I think leaving the tag in place is appropriate until the problems are sorted out, or a subsequent AfD reaches consensus one way or the other. Reyk  YO!  06:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment. I don't have a firm view on this. On the one hand, "no consensus" means that the question of notability remains open. On the other, the discussion has been had, so the tag is perhaps superfluous. This may need broader discussion at the project level.  Sandstein  07:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The notability was strongly questioned in the AFD, in considerable detail. I consider the tag appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)