Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glean Technologies

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. per keep arguments and WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glean Technologies

edit

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
partly agree, but not all sources I provide are dependent or based on the interviews or are event based. But it was a good comment for me to gather some new sources I did not see before. I applied SIRS which strictly sees one sentence coverage not notable (as in the NYTIMES example), but let's say 3-5 or more is kind of not a brief mention and may count towards SIRS reliable sources. below is my additional comment PodoSodo (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Wheatley, Mike (2025-02-12). "Glean Technologies jumps into no-code agentic AI development with Glean Agents". SiliconANGLE. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
  2. Cai, Kenrick (2024-12-18). "Glean Emerges From Stealth With $55 Million To Bring Search To The Enterprise". Forbes. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
  3. Metz, Rachel (2024-02-27). "Glean is worth $2.2 billion as Citigroup, Databricks, Workday invest". CNBC. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
  4. Zeff, Maxwell (2024-12-18). "Perplexity acquires Carbon to connect AI search to your work files". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2025-06-24.

    The article notes an interesting thing, how Glean pushed the AI race and inspires OpeanAI and other competitors: "Glean... has reportedly inspired OpenAI, Google, and several other AI giants to develop their own enterprise search products — and perhaps they’ve inspired Perplexity as well."

  5. Wiggers, Kyle (written in a narrative and analytical style by a local journalist who has been covering AI for years) (2024-02-27). "Glean wants to beat ChatGPT at its own game — in the enterprise". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
  6. Russell, Melia (2025-02-12). "Glean's latest AI release lets customers build digital agents that work while they sleep". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
PodoSodo (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC) Wow. Don't think I've ever had to get WP:RD1 out for an AfD before. Please don't copy giant paragraphs out of the sources. -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the new sources added and compressed-quoted here are Sigcov references, not trivial or occasional coverage. I found also much more but not sure it’s worth adding it here. WSJ has a good coverage on Glean and overall AI madness among big companies, surpassing the usual fundraising-type reporting. Fortune has also listed it as the top AI firm for two years in a raw. Seems it easily passes GNG.Uni44hossiq (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is a mistake in the last source. It should be Business Insider link https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-search-company-glean-launches-digital-agents-for-businesses-2025-2 - everything else is correct. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 4-5 of the sources provided here have a broad topic overview independent of press-kits, blogs, interviews or just copying info from the website or other interviews. Business Insider in particular starts with overviewing the company with a focus more on its product - chatbots and agents. TechCrunch is mentioning a fundraising but it's in the end of the story, while 50+% is devoted to the analysis of the startup by the editor. Forbes article is not so long, but it gives the desired independent and focused attention to the topic, aside from some CEO comments. SiliconANGLE is pretty okay in terms of WP:CORPTRIV too, and while it's not a CNBC level, but I did find it widely used in many company pages for sourcing basic facts. My modest WP before showed the company is among the top 10 ai companies in the world by revenue per Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [6], it was named number 6 global startup by Fast Company https://www.fastcompany.com/most-innovative-companies/list and it was overviewed here by The Information (website) [7]. And here is a big 2023 overview by Computerworld magazine [8] - it has a general description, analysis, 'how it works' section, a 'who are the competitors' section, and more. For instance, here is a quote where third party experts are commenting and analyzing: When asked whether enterprise users could trust results from Glean Chat, IDC research manager Hayley Sutherland said that companies should provide methods for understanding and explaining the results or recommendations generated by assistants like Glean Chat. Glean, according to Amalgam Insights’ principal analyst Hyoun Park, competes with the likes of Neeva, which was acquired by Snowflake. Therefore, there are sufficient reliable and non-routine sources in general and, in particular, in the time span of 2020-2025. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Glean_Technologies&oldid=1297285332"