Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fivetran (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Fivetran
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. References are PR, funding news, and routine annoucements.  scope_creep Talk  15:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - In his haste to serially nominate several articles I started for deletion, nom hasn't done a proper WP:BEFORE. A simple Google search turns up another great source on page 2 - an in-depth piece by a Forbes staffer noting that the company is worth billions, and chronicling its history. [] I'll find some more and add it. Please look more carefully next time. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  18:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It not a case of I've a made a mistake. The article is crock and reference fails WP:ORGIND.   scope_creep Talk  21:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * More haste. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The Forbes source linked above: How $5.6 Billion Cloud Company Fivetran Acquired Its Way To Survival lacks sufficient independence per WP:ORGIND because it is based on interviews with George Fraser, CEO/cofounder of Fivetran, Bob Muglia, a Fivetran board member, Martin Casado, "a partner at VC firm Andreessen Horowitz, which was a lead investor on Fivetran’s last three funding rounds", and Y Combinator president Geoff Ralston ("who endearingly counts Fivetran as one of the ultimate “cockroaches” out of more than 3,800 startups that have gone through Y Combinator"). This is a puff piece, accompanying a Forbes Cloud 100 List, and If a source's independence is in any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Beccaynr (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is insufficient support per WP:NCORP - the first source in the article (VentureBeat, 2021) is a raised capital and acquisition announcement (which are examples of trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH) that links to and quotes a Fivetran press release, so it lacks sufficient independence per WP:ORGIND. The second source, Computer Weekly, 2019, is a report on five companies, and the brief Fivetran section begins with quoting CEO Fraser, moves on to what the company says about itself, "Their thesis", "in their view," "what they term" and ends with "Fraser also counsels". This source lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, and it is the most-frequently cited reference in the article. Other sources in the article are trivial coverage as outlined by WP:CORPDEPTH (i.e. announcements of annual financial results, the opening or closing of local branches, expansions, acquisitions, "top 100" list, and raised capital). There is brief critical coverage from The Register, 2022, and my search finds more press releases and churnalism. Beccaynr (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: a directory-like listing for un unremarkable private company. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The editors above have analysed the sources so I don't have to, topic company fails NCORP, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 17:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Source analysis doesn't show that WP:NCORP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:15, 7 November 2022 (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.