Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinkle
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
— User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR, 21:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:SURMOUNTABLE (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)