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)[reply]

Clickability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 {{ping}}) 08:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See below; Original comment: confirming my PROD that the nominator cited. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*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][reply]

• Keep I have rewritten the article. The company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Here are three sources that are not passing mentions:
  1. McClure, Marji (2008-10-01). "Clickability Empowers Clients to Build Successful Sites". Information Today. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10 – via HighBeam Research.

     The article notes:

     Questia Online Library has a preview of the article here.
  2. Marshall, Matt (2008-02-06). "Fremont Mobile Services Gets Funding". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

     The article notes:

  3. Galbraith, Patrick (2009). Developing Web Applications with Apache, MySQL, memcached, and Perl. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 6. ISBN 0470538325. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

     The article notes:

  Cunard (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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:

  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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations.

  Cunard (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. -- GreenC 14:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I believe the user meant the fact why the article was started to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), I oppose a merge of Clickability to Limelight Networks. A merge of the material would be undue weight because:
  1. 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
  2. Clickability is not a part of Limelight Networks anymore because Limelight Networks sold Clickability to Upland Software in December 2013.
  Cunard (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Limelight_Networks#Acquisitions 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

However, K.e.coffman, 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)[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.