Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarizen

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. Stifle (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarizen

Article on company, with no real claims to fame or importance, nor any reliable sources attesting to any. And yes, press releases are reliable sources for very few things. CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very nicely written, but no hint as to what makes their products special as compared to anyone else's. What's "worthy of notice"? Simesa (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - As an experienced PM I must say that the simple fact that you can add CAD drawings to the software is something of major note. Also, Clarizen has more of a "claim to fame" than many of the other PM software companies listed here on Wiki. I think that in this case, and in this field, press releases are a reliable source to draw from. P6Manager 10:26, 15 September 2008

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some news articles from reliable sources, and added them to references section of the article. --Eastmain (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the sources particularly convincing, as they're mostly minor. In the case of the item labelled under the New York Times, it's obviously a rewritten press release which didn't even originate with the Times. So no change in my nomination. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper story that uses a press release as a source is still a newspaper article. --Eastmain (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "article" was a passing reference in a product blurb from another magazine, not significant coverage that could be used to establish notability. Flowanda | Talk 10:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Kelly ^hi! 04:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per an actual argument: Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org. Unless there is some notability to this company, there is no grounds for keeping the article. What we have here is a company that released its first software last year, with no indication that the software has achieved any significance. I'm sure the employees are proud, and when the world takes note then there will be notability. Until then, a reference is not a testimony. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2008 (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.