Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clixtr

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clixtr

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources here, here, here and here (just about) seem to assert notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As this article is an abomination of company and service, there are two subjects to discuss:
1. Service: all the references I could find are clearly connected with the launch event of the service, which is what "multiple sources" was not supposed to mean. Given the content of these news items, I doubt if anyone could tell a difference between this particular service and, say, Flickr or Google Picasa, so the references are clearly lacking depth. I would add that I have no doubts that this coverage is paid promotion, which would invalidate it for the purposes of establishing notability.
2. Company: absolutely nothing to suggest notability, just the startup announcement, which itself is covered not as such, but as an event during TechCrunch50.
I would specifically note, that if this article survives AfD, it should be cleaned of the company-related information. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources that are readily available all seem to cover just the launch announcement or basic existence, so that doesn't help with WP:ORG. The product/service offered may be significant enough to meet WP:NSOFT, but it is not evident at this time (right now it seems to be more in the order of WP:MILL). If someone can improve the article with more in-depth knowledge I am open to revise, but right now I don't see it. -- BenTels (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – ~~The topic of this stub article~~ This company meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG:

Clixtr Wins Social Networking Category at Emerging Tech Awards - Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal article
TechCrunch Clixtr Web Launch Announcement - Techcrunch article
TechCrunch50 Launch Article - Techcrunch article

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of this article's topics do you refer to? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revised !vote above to clarify: This company meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete for sheer low quality as an article.

As that isn't strict policy though (I wish!), then it would appear to scrape basic notability on its 2009 award. That's a lifetime ago in dotcom years though, and if they haven't seen meteoric success since then, then are they at all relevant today? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please read WP:NTEMP in entirety. Also, topic notability is based upon sources, and not upon the state of Wikipedia articles. Period. Please consider reading WP:IMPERFECT and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Suggestions to remove articles from the encyclopedia that are not based upon Wikipedia deletion policy and notability guidelines are essentially invalid. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:NTEMP suggests that coverage in relation to single event does not contribute to notability, which is Andy's point. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 19 August 2012 (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.