Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clear Books (3rd nomination)
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
— User:Ihcoyc, 19:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:B2B||WP:ORGIN||WP:SPS (Wikipedia:Notability)