Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collabera

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 as blatant advertising. Even the "Fox news" link provided is a press release. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Collabera

Collabera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

does not meet wp:corp, there are no real sources only press release. This article has been created before by the same user at Global Consultants Inc. and speedied first as a copyvio then as spam. Jon513 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not proved. Alberon (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to Jon513. The company was earlier called Global Consultants Inc. or GCI and now we have rebranded as Collabera. The company is factual and details provided so far as factual. In my initial creation of Global Consultant Inc. I was just trying to prove to someone how easy it was to create on wikipedia. The content i used was part of a company's marketing content and thus could be tagged as self promotion. When i tried to change the content, wikipedia had already locked me out. But this is a fresh attempt now since the company has changed from GCI to Collabera. (please visit www.collabera.com) If content is not to the standards, do suggest improvement, you will find the references to press releases are all factual as well. I shall find references from reliable secondary sources to be added to this instead. Also i am going through the Notability Wikipedia:Corp criteria and will do the needful to make the company note worthy. Thanks for your understanding. Rafialikhan (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Rafi

Are you saying you created the article to prove a point? That's only legitimate if you create an acceptable article, which means that notability and article content should be verifiable to reliable sources. Although press releases are adequate, if you can't find it anywhere else, to establish some very basic information such as who the CEO is, where the offices are located, the year the company was founded, and so on, any material that is likely to be challenged at all should be sourced and cited to reliable third party sources such as a newspaper.Wikidemo (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to all. Some renowned web references where Collabera (formerly Global Consultants Inc or GCI) or its people's contributions, services, papers etc. have been mentioned or published: [1] [2] [3] [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafialikhan (talk • contribs) 11:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete (unless sourced). I do think the information, if true, makes the company notable. A worldwide software / IT consultancy and solutions provider with 4,000 employees is almost guaranteed to be notable due to the nature of their work. But after googling this for 5 minutes (which is about my limit of patience) I couldn't find a source, so I'm a little dubious as to accuracy. As a note, collabera is claimed to be a 4,000 employee company yet has only +/- 4,000 google hits, mostly press releases it seems. By contrast, collabora, a company in a similar field, supposedly has 15 employees yet 9 million google hits (perhaps that one should be up for deletion too, it's not sourced). They seem to be different companies though, but the whole thing confuses me. If nothing else that's a good demonstration of the unreliability of counting google hits, and a good advertisement for trademark law. Anyway, the article creator is here in this discussion so I think it's fair to hold his feet to the fire and say that the article will be deleted in a few days unless he can find and insert some source citations. Of the four he mentioned here, three are clearly inadequate - they are merely pieces written by authors purporting to be Colabera employees. The attribution of authorship of a document to an employee of a company hardly makes the company notable. The fourth I don't want to open because it's got a certificate, but it seems to be a Microsoft page listing a piece of software from Colabera. The fact that a company has produced software, and that Microsoft is endorsing or selling that software, doesn't make the company notable. We need some reliable newspaper articles about the company, not a passing mention, that would support the claims of the article. Wikidemo (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you all. Firstly I would like to thank you all for guiding me to the wiki notability policy and also for pursuant in following up and ensuring that without credibility being established, a company cannot get into the good books of Wikipedia. No contention here as many companies in the software outsourcing domain from Bangalore India cannot be categorically considered notable on a global platform other that the likes of Wipro, Infosys, TCS, Satyam etc.

And Wikidemo has done an excellent job of using google hits of tracking out the companies’ noteworthiness and am also surprised he got hold of Collabora from UK (which ofcourse is not related to Collabera). But what about companies that may not be at the forefront of Internet News but still manage to have a notable reputation in the market whether in India or Globally.

I totally respect the feedbacks and accept the challenge to present my case. [[5]] - again a press release but note worthy. ‘Note:’ Collabera, which has 90-100 active clients, recorded $300 million in sales in 2007. So it is big enough that way and we are funded by Oak Investment Partners - [[6]]

Also to list out a few other clients for whom a large chunk of Application Management and online backbone is outsourced to Collabera are – Move.com (owners of Move.com and Realtor.com), Intermec & JC Whitney . In Europe: CMP Information, Daily Telegraph & Puma AG (Germany). So we are in many ways the brand behind the operation of some of these brands.

Collabera is a new entity (rebranded) from earlier [GCI] and therefore may not avail as many Google hits as satisfactorily required. But if you look at the companies that have been acquired, Planetasia, IVL, Blue Hammock has been at the forefront of their business in India but serving global clients. We are also listed as 118 in the top 2000 H1 B employer in the world

I am looking forward to more discussions on this till we are satisfied on the notability of the new brand - Collabera.

203.92.58.190 (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Rafi Ali Khan

And as for WikiDemo's comments on fair to hold my feet in the fire, it was more like i peeped into Wikipedia Article creation and someone yelled Snake and the sticks came down on my head. :-)

Rafialikhan (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC) That was my reply above had not signed-in (Sorry)

An identity is important to everything in the universe, we as humans have accepted this as the cosmological certainty. This identity that symbolizes uniqueness, respect and esteem is the right of each and every entity that is a part of the universe. Two entities cannot exist with the same name, we all can respect that, but the way they sound when spoken of by various people can be the same. herein, Collabera versus Collabora, are not just two names that can sound different, they are made up of different set of characters. Both entities being different in what they do and in what they stand for and what they will do for years to come. So comparing Collabera with another existing entity is not entirely right and should not be the reason for an AFD win. As for the true existence / notability of Collabera...i think patrons should do more careful research before ruling out the truth....Collabera with an 'e' means it stands for collaboration in all aspects in the electronic world....e for electronic.....there is no such meaning in the other Collabora that patrons have cited....all due respect to every individual...all due respect expected.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vondino (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we now take a new direction and look at taking Collabera our of the AFD. We can only assure everyone here that all content placed here are factual we shall monitor it to ensure that the article and content lives up to all Wikipedia standards.

203.92.58.190 (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2008 (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.