Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glean Technologies

Glean Technologies

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Glean Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:SERIESA, promotional article about a company that has little to no coverage in WP:RS outside trade press profiles and financial announcements. FalconK (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. FalconK (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep It definitely has a notable in-depth coverage in reliable independent and multiple sources. Forbes Staff from 2021 [1] provides a comprehensive, in-depth story written by the journalist himself. Another Forbes USA Staff piece from 2023 [2] gives more details on what happened and the startup is evolving. This Business Insider deep coverage by the Senior Correspondent Melia Russell, who has been covering tech since 2013, has an analysis of the previous statement of the company and sheds journalist analytics on the company's future, market position and user demand. [3] While this Business Insider by the same correspondent talks about AI agents and technology behind the company [4].

I also added this significant coverage from CNBC (June 10 this year) [5], which has a market analysis, new market valuation, and comparison with OpenAI, and so on. PodoSodo (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not agree this demonstrates reliable, independent, significant coverage, for these reasons:

1. The article relies entirely on the company for sourcing and is merely a profile; see WP:SIRS
2. Another profile, this time about the founder and not the company; does not make either notable for the same reason as above
3. WP:ORGTRIV describing the company numerically and apparently sourced only from the company itself, making it dependent for the same reasons
4. Dependent; entirely based on an interview with the company's head of product
5. WP:ORGTRIV and also mostly based on interviews with the company's founders.

FalconK (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)