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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity (company)[edit]

Clarity (company) (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)

Never was notable, though it managed to attract aa great deal of publicity. I tried to remove some of the promotionalism, including self-serving quotes, before I realized that the article was hopeless. The Huffington Post is notoriously unreliable,as it has no editorial control; TechCrunch has both some real reviews and much PR-placement--the refs here are the latter; I'm not passing judgement about all the contents of the Financial Post, but the items here are PR; The rest are even worse. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Changing my vote based on Capitals00 observation that most of the sources are actually promtional Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deathlibrarian Just be aware, it is not enough for there to be "some good RS" - those references must also have independent content and not extensively rely on content that originates back to the company and with depth that is more than reciting company facts such as "founded in XXXX with YYY employees and headquartered in ZZZZ". None of the references in the article meet these criteria, which are the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks HighKing, but I would disagree with the fact these are not indepedent references as per WP:RS. Firstly they are from publications sources/clearly independent of Clarity and clearly regarded as RS (ie Forbes, Wired, Techcrunch, CBS, Huffington Post, Financial Post, etc). Secondly some of the information is derived from Martell (the same as any article that interviews someone that is associated with a company would be!), but there is also extra added information that has been added by the authors of the articles. There is nothing to indicate all the content, in all these articles, was provided solely by Martell - and IMHO the articles clearly surpass superficial writing, identified in WP:CORPDEPTH. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deathlibrarian, I've read all of the references mentioned and I disagree. I note that you have not indicated specific articles that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability and contain content that is independent. It would be helpful if you were to link to these references. Based on what you've said, I've looked at each reference and I believe they all fail the criteria. Forbes has a mixture of articles and a lot (most?) are from "Contributors" with no editorial control and as such fails WP:RS. There are no Forbes references linked but a quick search on the Forbes website turned up 8 articles, all from "contributors". The Wired article is entirely based on information provided by the founder, Martell, or by "connected" (not independent) persons such as Dan Waldschmidt (who "works" for Clarity). Fails WP:ORGIND. As pointed out by the nom, DGG, Techcrunch has a lot of "placement" articles - a quick search on Techcrunch shows 50 articles. I haven't read them all but of the 20 or so that I have read, they are all relying on company announcements and interviews and fail WP:ORGIND. The CBC reference is based on an interview with Martell with no independent content and fails WP:ORGIND. The Huff Post reference is a blog and therefore fails WP:RS but even if that wasn't the case, it is only a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The National Post reference is entirely based on an interview with Martell and fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, the Financial Post article doesn't even mention the company and merely provides quotes from the founder - fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • HighKing Noted - consiering this and some of the other comments, I've changed my vote. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources are not that strong for this company. I don't think it is notable enough yet so maybe in the future it can be brought back. But right now, the sources look pretty weak. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notability, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree that existing sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability. But appears to be some substantial recent coverage in Forbes and TechCrunch. Article definitely needs work but search of non-cited sources suggests that subject meets WP:CORPDEPTH. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 20:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are roughly 8 Forbes articles and about 50 TechCrunch articles. I've read all of the Forbes and got through about 20 or so of the Techcrunch. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps if you posted specific links to specific articles we could look at which of those references you believe are good? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in particular, any Forbes article by a "contributor" is only their personal POV--and a frequent source for PR. And TechCrunch , while containing some genuine product views, is mostly a source for PR and trivial news. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as most sources are paid posts or simply promotional. Capitals00 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2018 (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.