Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CB Insights


 * 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 keep. Salvio 12:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

CB Insights

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and WP:SIGCOV. This purely a promotional article WP:PROMO. Earlier, the article was proposed for deletion WP:PROD, but the creator of this article removed the tag with reasoning which is beyond anyone's comprehension (kindly check the history log). Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Here's my explanation.

CB Insights is one of the top three (by usage and revenue) market intelligence platforms for tracking venture capital, and funding activities for private companies. Link from one of CB Insights' competitors here.

The company is considered a leader in its domain and a simple test would be searching CB Insights on Wikipedia and seeing the number of articles, particularly in the private equity, venture capital domains. Link here.

The company is quite a significant one in the private equity / venture capital / startup investments domain because it fills a void that very few can fill. i.e. market intelligence / venture capital information for private startups. Currently, they are tracking an annual revenue of ~$50 million, and have ~300 employees.

Sources

Sources for this article are quite diverse and a collection of all of them will pass the GNG guidelines where the emphasis is on a) independent sources, b) reliability of the sources being referenced, c) more than a passing mention i.e. significant coverage, and d) multitude of sources -- all of them proving that that this is indeed notable.

1. Newspapers and Media: E.g. New York Times, TechCrunch, Business Insider

2. Market Intelligence Trackers: E.g. Crunchbase, Linkedin Company Intelligence

3. Other Advisory Firms: E.g. Pricewaterhouse Coopers

Further proof of CB Insights as a Reliable Source for Financial Data -- Can be also seen from the below table which shows the number of articles referencing CB Insights data. Now, if you click on each one of them you will see the reliability.

Additionally a few sources have been assessed to add to the GNG guidelines checks. In all this you will see that the reliability, independence, and significance measures are met, and met at multiple locations -- hence, collectively meeting the notability checks.

Ktin (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The Financial Times seems to regard the figures they produce as newsworthy, but don't report much on the company itself. There is dedicated coverage in Forbes already quoted in the article. The reason given for deprodding seemed quite clear to me, in context. I don't necessarily agree with it, and it shouldn't affect the AfD either way, but it's inaccurate to say that it's "beyond anyone's comprehension". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Agree with the above Keep vote and assessment. This company has significant coverage some, from major news sources, Forbes, Tech Crunch, etc. It also has a lot of incoming links within Wiki. I am surprised that why someone would nominate this for deletion! Lately I have seen many good pages being nominated for deletion just because they are commercial in nature.Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Lots of significant coverage as noted above. While Twinkle makes it exceptionally easy to nominate for deletion, please consider doing a bit of research before clicking the button as Wikipedia's resources are scarce. Note that there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding around notability in the nom when citing the removed PROD - we don't care if something is "unique", we care if it is discussed significantly by sources demonstrating notability. II  | (t - c) 11:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.