Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collibra

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collibra

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Profile of a corporation, recently recreated after a PROD, still fails WP:NCORP. All sources are to the organization's own website and/or press releases, or they are WP:ORGTRIV (news of expansions, capital raises, etc) that don't constitute WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, according to some sources, one of their products has been rated as the leading product in its category by Gartner's Magic Quadrant. Should not that make it notable? Sauer202 (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source for that claim is... Collibra itself! Any Gartner coverage of this is hidden behind paywalls on the Gartner website, so I haven't seen it, but I suspect it would qualify as WP:ORGTRIV under as "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in 'best of', 'top 100', 'fastest growing' or similar lists." Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV. The company’s own website, a corporate listing, their press releases, and political statements are not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added that it was listed as number 52 in Forbes Cloud 100 in 2024, and that it has a "unicorn" status. I have no knowledge of the company other than what is in the article. It seems notable to me, and I think it would be good to have a neutral Wikipedia article to give a basic understanding of what the company is about. Sauer202 (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources do you think meet the requirements of WP:NCORP? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think big names in tech should be on Wikipedia if they are notable.

I believe the unicorn sources clearly meet the notability guidelines as significant, independent, reliable and secondary:

Eerste Belgische 'unicorn': Collibra is meer dan één miljard dollar waard
Belgian tech unicorn Collibra raises €104M funding at €2.1B valuation, aims to grow its big data management platform
Collibra to Create 200+ Jobs in Fulton Co. | Governor Brian P. Kemp Office of the Governor
Belgian data intelligence company Collibra doubles its unicorn valuation with new $112.5 million round - Tech.eu

On "Collibra Named a Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant for Metadata Management Solutions for the Fifth Consecutive Year | Collibra", I will not purchase the original report(s) for the sake of the argument, but I find the information presented trustworthy in view of it being quite scandalous if a big company like Collibra were to falsify that they had been awarded the title as leaders in their business domain by a company like Gartner for several years.

On "Alation vs. Collibra vs. Informatica vs. Atlan: Evaluation Guide", this is a comparison by a competitor which is significant, and might be seen as "independent" since it from a competitor.

Considered together, I think that Collibra has received significant coverage from independent, reliable and secondary sources. Sauer202 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in the nomination, the sources are WP:ORGTRIV, routine news about location openings, valuations, capital raises, rankings, etc. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essentially a textbook too soon WP:SERIESA, in that we don't accept random awards and listings as indications that we should have an article, as opposed to the additional criteria we have for some other subjects like WP:ANYBIO, most of them are essentially useless (though, even for people, we wouldn't expect an award to confer notability unless a: we had an article on the award and b: that article says how it's super important in the field. Think Pulitzer, Nobel or Grammy). There needs to be actual coverage outside the usual WP:CORPROUTINE announcements, and I do not see any of that, at all. As a side note, to clarify a point of the guidelines, WP:ORGIND excludes (emphasis mine) other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.