Deletion of Clear Books (3rd nomination)

Comment: I'd recommend  if this is deleted.  Note two speedy deletions (A7 and/or G11), one proposed deletion, two prior AfDs (one no consensus, one delete) and now this
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT)

Comment: Really, this should have been speedily deleted as a recreation of material deleted after a prior discussion; claiming that this article is about the software rather than the business is hair-splitting when they share the same name.  A publication about "KillerStartups" may or may not be a reliable source, but almost by definition is not helpful when considering notability.  It's a buzz site for business startups, and startups, by definition, are not established businesses that have even had a chance at becoming encyclopedia subjects.  The remaining coverage details routine transactions.  None of the sources really establishes more than that the product exists and is available, it's all in tech related accounting or trade publications, this is |back office software offered through the Internet, and neither the article nor any offered source establishes that this product has had |significant effects on history, technology, or culture, not even in the accounting industry itself.  The publicity stunt of offering it to MPs is not that, either; publicity stunts have the same issues that |other self-published sources do
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:B2B||WP:ORGIN||WP:SPS)

Comment: Sources provided fail to establish notability by a long-shot. Scant mention in independent sources, mostly brief, trivial, routine, tangential or a rehash of PR press releases. Nothing substantial enough to establish notability per . Highly doubt that sources establishing notability will ever be found. My own search turned up nothing even faintly promising. In short, neither the company nor its product is notable. The article still fails either guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSOFT)