Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickability


 * 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 no consensus. Merge/redirect discussions can continue on the article talk page.  Sandstein  08:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Clickability

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was PRODded a second time, with "Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article's tone is advertorial in nature, so WP:PROMO applies." I concur. This article doesn't show any notability or usefulness as an article, and was substantially written by redlinked SPAs. It's been unfixed for years and shows no prospect of being fixable. David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, plus the article seems to be using a lot non-notable awards that the company received as grounds for its notability. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 08:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete See below; Original comment: confirming my PROD that the nominator cited. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

*Delete. The only immediately apparent reliable source for the article as it stands is Information Week, and that particular citation is a dead link.  A  Train talk 22:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC) [see updated comment below]  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I have rewritten the article. The company passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any comments on the rewrite?  Sandstein  08:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm still unconvinced. The new article is definitely a big improvement but do the new references really provide depth of coverage? There's a lot of passing mentions. I grant that determining depth of coverage can be subjective and the article is clearly no longer the blight it used to be so I'll strike my delete !vote. But I'm not enthusiastic enough about the new sources to weigh in as a keep, either.  A  Train talk 13:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are three sources that are not passing mentions: The article notes: "Clickability, Inc. was founded in 1999 in San Francisco by four friends: John Girard, Jeff Freund, Sean Noonan, and Timur Yarnall. Girard, the company's CEO, serves on Clickability's senior management team along with Freund, the organization's CTO, and Noonan, Clickability's vice president of finance. Yarnell left to start his own company, Broadcast Interactive Media, LLC, which is now Clickability's largest reseller. ... Clickability's tools began appearing--and still appear--on hundreds of media websites, including CNN and The Wall Street Journal. But in 2000 and 2001, when internet advertising markets faced tough times, the Clickability team determined it was time to shift gears. ...  The Clickability platform is an on-demand web content management system that enables nontechnical users to control content on their websites through its entire life cycle, from creation and management to publishing and delivery. It is offered in three editions (express, professional, and enterprise) depending on the size and needs of each customer, which can combine its web publishing, advertising, marketing, and hosting functions all on a single platform.  The platform has four parts. The first, infrastructure as a service, involves Clickability serving as the host of the application as well as the content repository for its clients' content. The next is onboarding and support, which transitions customers to the platform. The third is the software-as-a-service (SaaS) component." Questia Online Library has a preview of the article here. The article notes: "Clickability: The San Francisco-based online content management company raised $8 million. Clickability offers an all-in-one package to help clients like the New York Times, CNN Interactive and others manage their Web sites. It's an online content management system that comes with analytics tools, its own content delivery network, data storage, e-mail newsletters, RSS feeds and other services, so large publishers can more efficiently manage their Web properties.  The company started in 1999, raised $7.3 million in 2000, and has been profitable since 2004, according to VentureWire.  Its latest round, for $8 million, was led by Shasta Ventures with previous investor Convergence Partners returning to the round." The article notes: "Clickability is a company that provides SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) web content management platform products. Their services include content management, web site publishing and delivery, search, web analytics, and newsletter delivery. They use memcached as a layer-2 cache for application servers to store content objects as serialized Java objects. They now run multiple instances of memcached, which are reguarly cleared and versioned for cache consistency. They also use multicast messaging to cache objects across multiple memcached servers, as well as a messaging queue used for sending a clearing message to application servers. They originally did not use memcached, but were able to implement it into their architecture within a couple of days after deciding to take advantage of memcached's benefits. Because of memcached, particularly how it provides a caching layer to web applications to prevent excessive hits to the database, they now serve 400 million page-views a month!" Cunard (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment on the sources presented. They are mostly PR like, including an interview with the founder (source #1) and the funding announcement (source #2). Source #3 is a passing mentioned, which does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and is insufficient to build an encyclopedia entry. Combined, these sources do not overcome WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Information Today article is an in-depth article about the company. It contains quotes from the founder which is standard journalistic practice and does not exclude it from establishing notability. The second article is not merely a funding announcement. It provides "deep coverage" about the company's history (its founding, its clients, its past funding round). The third source provides "deep coverage" about the technology aspects of the company's software.  From WP:CORPDEPTH: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." It is clear based on my rewrite that it is possible "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about [the] organization", so the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Cunard (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Combined, these sources do not overcome WP:PROMO. – I am an editor with no conflict of interest with the subject. I rewrote the article. Please explain how the article still violates WP:PROMO so I can address Neutral point of view violations. Cunard (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has been rewritten by a neutral editor with no connection to the subject (no PROMO). It's written in a neutral manner. The sources are in-depth according to CORPDEPTH. It meets GNG. -- Green  C  14:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep it still might be marginal, but does seem like it stood the test of time, and has a remarkable discipline to avoid buzzwords and acronyms. Benefit of the doubt. W Nowicki (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as either the Keep votes themselves are acknowledging the concerns but are still choosing to say keep or they sinply ignore it altogether; like with the Delete vptes, everything here is essentially simply PR including the fact it simply comes with the usual and expected news about funding and financing which happens to all companies especially the ones that are seeking and hoping to establish capital and funding; any AfD that has closed as Delete with this basis has bee noticeable, and this is yet another case of it. The article itself even goes to specifications at what, where and why the product was being used; any such information can and would only be used to seek clients and investors, this is something else that has been established at AfD (this article itself even goes to focus about what happened to their employees (see first section, "cut employees from 40 to 15). Any attempts to actually classify this as "coverage and reviews" cannot be taken seriously if they themselves simply chopse to look the other way and not face the actual PR concerns. Even from the above, it's all still essentially business listings and profiles, see for example: Because of memcached, particularly how it provides a caching layer to web applications to prevent excessive hits to the database, they now serve 400 million page-views a month! No one would honestly say that's something convincing for both actual coverage and substance, if it simply inflates and puffs the company's own being. Going to the Keep votes again, they have made no attempt to mention or otherwise acknowledge these concerns, and they even go to the basis of "Oh well, at least someone with no COI at least changed the article, it at least takes care of something". I'll also note this was even deleted in 2008 as G11, another classic example of repeated advertising and the attempts that follow. At best, once deleted, this can be redirected to the Limelight Networks article given the acquisition. SwisterTwister   talk  23:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * After reading the entire article, Im inclined to delete. It sounds this was posted just to get more people to use it. Pyrusca (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not rewrite the article "just to get more people to use it". This is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the user meant the fact why the article was started to begin with. SwisterTwister   talk  06:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Limelight Networks, which acquired the company in 2011. The merge target only has a passing mention, so this will improve the article. North America1000 05:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , I oppose a merge of Clickability to Limelight Networks. A merge of the material would be undue weight because:<ol><li>Much of the Clickability article contains information about Clickability's history and products in the years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2004 before it was sold to Limelight Networks in 2011 and</li><li>Clickability is not a part of Limelight Networks anymore because Limelight Networks sold Clickability to Upland Software in December 2013.</li></ol> Cunard (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Limelight_Networks as the company is mentioned there; I don't see a need for a merge though. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A reason for a merge is because the Limelight Networks article presently provides absolutely no context about what Clickability does. All it states is, "May 2011, the company acquired Clickability for $10 million. On December 23, 2013 Upland Software announced that they had acquired Clickability from Limelight." Why would we want to keep the merge target I suggested "dumbed down" for Wikipedia's readers, providing no context? Also, I would say merge to Upland Software, but no such article exists, so this is the most appropriate target. North America1000 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I view "Redirect" as a cleaner outcome; the subject has been deemed to be not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Anything useful can be pulled from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * However,, regarding my analysis above especially regarding the advert foundations that have happened here (including mentioned by the nominator), would you object to deletion first? SwisterTwister   talk  06:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.