Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medallia


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Medallia

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

Per WP:SERIESA, lack of notability. Coverage does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. FalconK (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. FalconK (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management,  and Software.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. From Notability (organizations and companies) (my bolding): "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." Analyst reports https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/MDLA/price-target/Internet Archive contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall: Additional sources   The review notes: "Medallia is a popular experience management (opens in new tab) platform which comes with a range of powerful tools. Founded in 2001, it has rapidly grown to become a global provider with over 1000 employees and 15 offices across the world. ... Medallia offers a few different customer service options, but there is a notable absence of live chat support. ... Medallia is an industry-leader in the business analytics and customer experience field, but there are plenty of alternatives available if you don’t have room in your budget for its high price tag."   The article notes: "Medallia, 11 years old and profitable, has technology to bridge this gap, and it's raised $35 million from Sequoia Capital as part of its first institutional funding round, VentureWire has learned. Valuation is not disclosed. Medallia was founded in 2001 by Borge Hald and Amy Pressman, two veterans of the Boston Consulting Group who noticed when they were on business trips that they preferred the service at smaller companies and hotels. ... Medallia's early years were lean. The company had talked to Hilton Hotels & Resorts, which ultimately became a customer, on Sept. 10, 2001, and had plans to raise venture capital, but 9/11 scuttled those plans. Instead, Medallia was bootstrapped month-to-month until revenue started coming in a year or so later."   The article notes: "Eleven months ago, customer feedback company Medallia hired an industry veteran named Leslie Stretch to guide it to IPO. On Friday, he delivered – but so well as to raise questions about what constitutes a successful tech IPO in the era of high-flying enterprise debuts such as Slack, Zoom and CrowdStrike. After pricing its offering at a higher-than-expected $21 per share on Thursday night, shares of Medallia raced up 76% and then largely held on afterward, finishing the company’s first day of trading at $37.05 a share. The day was a big win for Stretch and Medallia, an 18-year-old maker of software that helps collect, measure and interpret customer feedback and sentiment for big businesses like Bank of America, Citi and ExxonMobil. ... When Stretch took over at Medallia in 2018, he inherited a then-17-year-old company known as one of the pioneers of using software to measure customer feedback and sentiment through surveys and social tools."   The article notes: "Medallia’s market value was over $6 billion as of Monday, including warrants, options and restricted stock. The company raised more than $325 million in its offering."   The article is written by Faith Adams, a senior analyst at Forrester Research. The article notes: "Medallia continues its buying spree — adding to its numerous acquisitions in 2019 and its purchase of video feedback platform LivingLens in February of this year. ... Technology is just one piece of the puzzle, though, when it comes to CX transformation. For Medallia to continue its success, it will also have to help customers grow and evolve their CX initiatives — a continuing challenge for both technology and service providers in the CX space." </li> <li> The article is written by Colleen Fazio, a senior analyst, Joana de Quintanilha, a VP, Principal Analyst, and Rusty Warner, a VP, Principal Analyst. The article notes: "How will Thunderhead be integrated? Reference clients for The Forrester Wave™: Customer Feedback Management Platforms, Q2 2021 expressed skepticism about how Medallia’s new acquisitions would be integrated. The Thunderhead announcement is the latest of a dizzying number of Medallia acquisitions in the past 18 months, including digital experience platform Decibel, contact center coaching and quality management platform Stella Connect, and speech-to-text platform Voci Technologies. For clients to fully realize the benefits of these offerings, Medallia will need to focus on enabling data integration and analysis in a seamless and user-friendly way. </li> <li> The article notes: "Medalia’s competitors include SurveyMonkey, which went public last September, and Qualtrics, which SAP bought for $8 billion in November just ahead of the company’s IPO. ... Prior to the offering, Sequoia Capital owned 40% of the company, an unusually large stake for a venture firm at this stage. At Friday’s high, Sequoia stake was worth about $1.8 billion." </li></ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Medallia to pass Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC) </li></ul> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Routine reporting on financial transactions doesn't establish notability though. FalconK (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability (organizations and companies) says that analyst reports can be used to establish notability. I have provided 18 analyst reports about the company. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , "Ratings (by analysts)" are not "Analyst Reports". The "ratings" linked above in your table do not contain sufficient CORPDEPTH to be considered as meeting NCORP criteria. But the links to Analyst reports by Forrester and Gartner for example meet the criteria as the provide in-depth "Independent Content". <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the columns of the table says "Upside/Downside on Report Date". These are not merely analyst ratings. These are analyst reports that contain analyst ratings alongside research into how the analysts reached their conclusions. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Marketbeat's Upside/Downside ratings are explained here. It's effectively comparing the stock price performance to other indices. I don't believe that qualifies as in-depth information sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. If these analyst ratings contained CORPDEPTH information I would expect to see the "content" of these reports in the article (or any article about a business) but ... we don't as far as my experience goes. Whereas the longer analyst reports will nearly always contain information that may appear in the article. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I finally found a way to get the Craig Hallum report of 26 July 2021, and it absolutely does not contain the type of information meant in WP:ORGCRIT. Of three pages, the second is merely financial accounts over time and the third is required disclosures.  The first page announces an acquisition deal (routine) and discusses how financial and operational ephemera will affect the stock price and acquisition.  It's very good analysis if you're trying to price the stock, but it's not stuff that is of all that much use when trying to establish the company's role in the broader context.  FalconK (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
 * Related discussions:
 * Logs:
 * --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a company therefore NCORP is the most appropriate evaluation criteria. Ratings are not Analyst reports and they do not contain any in-depth "Independent Content" as per NCORP criteria. But there are sufficient Analyst reports such as the one from Forrester linked above by Cunard and the one from Gartner linked above by me. Topic therefore meets NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: Listed company with sufficient amount of analyst reports. Meets WP:LISTED. ChristinaNY (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.