Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GreenPal
Keep both greenpal and Clayton pages. Both have significant coverage. Just implying that news are all PR generated and congratulating them for using a good PR firm, without providing any evidence or proof is not a justification for deletion.  Some of these appear to be respected publications with hard copies, such as Tampa Bay times, Times of San Diego, The Missouri Times, The Courier. Star Tribune. I just don't buy the nominator's argument that these are all PR. Looking at Clayton, he also has coverage in WSJ (twice), NBC news, Entrepreneur, CBS, American Express, etc. Also many of these sources would work for GreePal too, but not used in GreenPal page. I find it hard to believe someone could buy this much press, especially since the writers in many top publications could lose their jobs for accepting fees for writing. I do believe some of that is going on with smaller publications. So based on }} Wikipedia policy they both meet notability guidelines
— User:Peter303x, 02:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)