Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinkle


 * 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. I think the consensus is to keep, provided it is suitably rewritten to clarify the actual notability  DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Clinkle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

high degree of promotions. Coverage on Popular media are just for Investments of Script writing/ Coverage. Similar to larger scale Grofer, Delhivery, and other startup story. Website Link does not even work. Some random company made by few people for fun. It is not notable at all. Light2021 (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability does not depend on the company being active.  Defunct companies can be notable.  Issues with promotional text are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and have no effect on notability of the company.   What does matter is if there is significant coverage in reliable sources.  And there is, as evidenced by the references already on the article.   NYT, WSJ, Forbes and TechCrunch and a whole lot more....   Advanced refutations to anyone who claims without evidence that these are not cases of legit news coverage by reliable sources.  Advanced refutations to anyone claiming that reporting on VC financing is not legit news coverage.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet again you're citing a Forbes contributor blog as an RS. Please don't, this sort of thing leads me to discount your ability to discern sources - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed I am, and proudly so in this case!  This is by Forbes contributor Tomio Geron, who was "previously a staff reporter at Forbes covering start-ups and venture capital", and "previously a reporter for Dow Jones VentureWire".  And his current job?  He works as a staff reporter for the WSJ.  This is a journalist who was selected by his peers in 2010 for "outstanding journalism".  This is a journalist who knows legit news coverage. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That would still be a WP:SPS at absolute best, and not a way to establish notability - David Gerard (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but not even close. You seem to be fixating on the article existing in the Forbes blog area, rather than examining its merits. And even if this one source is discounted for WP:N, there are many many others to fill its place.  Notable company, article needs cleanup.  ez keep.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And my, Forbes has lots of good coverage of the demise of this company. Really interesting reading and good reporting.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * note also seems that the reliable sources do confirm that this company had the largest seed round in silicon valley history.  Even more interesting is finding this company is used as an "infamous example" in commentary about the VC industry --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- If the subject's claim to notability is "this company had the largest seed round in silicon valley history" that's not saying much. Nothing else stands out about this minor tech company. The article attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from Netflix] because some of its management worked there. No value to the readers at this time apart inform them about the funding and the product features, which can done just as well on the company's web site. Sources in the article are not convincing and do not rise to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * note - still doing some more searching, and finding many references in case studies, editorials and commentaries to this company as the classic example of VC funding failure. Not only should this article be kept and cleaned up, the funding aspect of this company should be mentioned on Venture capital and/or related articles if it is not already there.  And the more I search, the more references I find about this company having a societal impact, for example in popular culture, the company was used in a 2016 episode of Silicon Valley (TV series).   I could go on, but there are too many pale yellow dotted sigs here already. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep. Given that the Silicon Valley / US tech / venture funded startup industry is rightfully a topic area for the encyclopedia, you can't cover an industry without covering some of the more notable companies within that industry. This article easily passes general and corp notability guidelines with major mentions about the company in both mainstream mass media and specialized tech press. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, source examples include, but are not limited to: New York Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, Gigaom, The New York Times (wp:newsblog), TechCrunch, Business Insider, TechCrunch, etc. etc. North America1000 10:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A miserably failed startup as per the investors views itself for which this article even exist in Wikipedia. Given website does not even work. Definitely a work of close associate or company itself. Coverage on Tech crunch and others like Business insiders write anything related to any business. Highly questionable coverage. Major media covered as Once in a lifetime coverage any startup can get if they get money from investors. Repetitive coverage lacks the notability standards and definitely not at all encyclopedic. Light2021 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, in your nomination and commentary you appear to have the opinion that any startup company is somehow unable to be notable, regardless of source coverage. That's fine, and you're fully entitled to your own personal opinion. However, notability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the age or success of companies. Check out WP:NEWCOMPANY and WP:DEFUNCTS for some examples of this line of reasoning. Also, you use lots of WP:PEACOCK language herein in support of deletion ("miserable failed startup", "website does not even work", similar to other companies, "some random company", etc., but this has no bearing regarding notability per Wikipedia's notability standards. Sorry, but you seem to be judging notability subjectively, like a company that didn't "make it" is therefore unable to be notable as some sort of default. Also, promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing. North America1000 15:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If we go by your ways, and citations of policies like I am unaware of all these, and just my opinions and nothing more. Wikipedia will become directory and nothing else. Defunct or unsuccessful is not criteria for deletion but wikipedia is not a junk space for all the company that got funded and got covered by once in a lifetime coverage on popular media. FYI you can go through : Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed . You cite selective articles to read, please cite these also: Notability (organizations and companies) Run-of-the-mill Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause Every snowflake is unique Wikipedia is not a newspaper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Duration_of_coverage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Depth_of_coverage, What is and is not routine coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion ,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event
 * Light2021 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: this company had a very well-publicized rise and fall. Significant coverage has been listed above and in article, examples include Forbes, Wall Street Journal, more Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, and Bloomberg. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- even if we cull the "launch publicity" prose from the article, I'm not convinced that the page would be useful to readers as a "use case of failed VC-backed startup". The WSJ coverage states for example:
 * Beyond the financing, the company has struggled to execute on its vision and retain executives. Former Chief Operating Officer Barry McCarthy, a former Netflix executive, stayed on about five months before exiting last March. The Internet, meanwhile, is still littered with evidence of what Clinkle was supposed to be, including an abstract commercial about a “revolution.”
 * None of this rises to the level of encyclopedia notability; companies are funded and then fail all the time; nothing special or significant about this one in particular. I thus still advocate deletion as (IMO) this page does not add value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and I concur with the above comments and analysis, everything (regardless of who and where it's published) is in fact an advertisement, and a blatant one at that, from the large interviewed information and quotes, to then the company information and services specifics, there's nothing else to call this but a blatant advertisement. It's in fact actually puffed now with overmassive "history and product" section which naturally go to about the company's own actions and plans, which are not only PR, but then massively formed as one now. We shall and never will make any compromises of such blatancy, and it shows since the article was (1) hardly ever touched beyond this advertising and (2) these actions were made by quickly coming-and-going accounts, none of which made any actual substantial activities (seriously, the history shows over a dozen SPAs alone). The IPs themselves are actually geolocating to the company, showing the obvious of how severely involved the company was with this. Therefore any claims of "news sources exist!" hold no convincing and nor will they if they are not actually considering the serious concerns are, and how this article is advertising. We need to seriously consider how damaging this is for such blatant advertisements to be considered as "acceptable" when they are anything but. The article itself has such damning specifics such as its employees and company foundation information, it's nothing we should even ask or consider for fixing. SwisterTwister   talk  23:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi SwisterTwister and Light2021. I started this article in June 2013. There had been some press coverage of the company, though even at the time it was mostly hype. I made a stub page thinking there was the possibility that the company would become something and the article would grow with the company. It's obviously been a mixed bag since. Both the company and the article don't seem to be doing so great. I wonder would it be possible to excise the problematic parts of the article (the promotional stuff, etc.) and have a salvageable article? I'm a bit ambivalent about whether this article gets kept or deleted. I think our standards for notability for businesses are pretty low. Specific to this category of businesses, we can look at Template:Payment service providers and see similar articles, for better or worse. I'm also sympathetic to the argument that "it exists!" is not a sufficient basis for having a Wikipedia article and I've argued to delete other articles for similar reasons. I probably won't vote in this discussion one way or another, but thought it might be helpful to share some thoughts. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think for your queries or initiation for writing an article you can read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Every_snowflake_is_unique  and  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Duration_of_coverage


 * and there are others who are there and need to be deleted or rewrite in a proper manner. Your suggestions and ideas are welcome. Light2021 (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The statement in the opening paragraph "In 2013 it raised $25 million in what became Silicon Valley's largest seed round" makes the company pretty notable. Biglulu (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * and that is exactly the reason for nominations. there are nothing to write for such startup than raising a fund or get coverage by media once in a lifetime. This is not a Press or startup newspaper where we need to write each and every article for such startups. Does not make it Encyclopedic notable. Light2021 (talk) 10:11, 22 October 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.