Deletion of Clinkle

Comment: notability does not depend on the company being active.   Defunct companies can be notable.  Issues with promotional text are  and have no effect on notability of the company.   What does matter is if there is significant coverage in reliable sources.  And there is, as evidenced by the references already on the article.   NYThttp://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/silicon-valley-luminaries-bet-on-clinkle-a-payments-start-up/, WSJhttp://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324020504578396912443242512, Forbeshttp://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/06/27/payments-startup-clinkle-raises-25-million-seed-round/ and TechCrunchhttps://techcrunch.com/2015/05/15/clunk/ and a whole lot more....   Advanced refutations to anyone who claims '''without evidence''' that these are not cases of legit news coverage by reliable sources.  Advanced refutations to anyone claiming that reporting on VC financing is not legit news coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SURMOUNTABLE)

Comment: Meets , source examples include, but are not limited to: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/this-22-year-old-just-won-silicon-valley.html New York Magazine, http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324020504578396912443242512 The Wall Street Journal, https://gigaom.com/2013/06/27/stanfords-25m-secret-payments-startup-clinkle-wants-to-make-your-college-cashless/ Gigaom, http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/silicon-valley-luminaries-bet-on-clinkle-a-payments-start-up/ The New York Times (wp:newsblog), https://techcrunch.com/2015/05/15/clunk/ TechCrunch, http://www.businessinsider.com/clinkle-employees-depart-2013-11 Business Insider, https://techcrunch.com/2015/12/29/i-know-you-thought-it-was-dead-but/ TechCrunch, etc. etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: If the subject's claim to notability is "this company had the largest seed round in silicon valley history" that's not saying much. Nothing else stands out about this minor tech company. The article attempts to  notability from Netflix because some of its management worked there. No value to the readers at this time apart inform them about the funding and the product features, which can done just as well on the company's web site. Sources in the article are not convincing and do not rise to the level of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT||WP:CORPDEPTH)