Talk:Snowflake Inc.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... SRSLY? --LavaBaron (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• @AKS.9955: @LavaBaron: I'm declining the speedy since there is an assertion of notability here via the news articles that have covered the service. It's enough to where it would pass speedy criteria. LavaBaron, what you need to do here is show how this service merits an entry outside of Muglia's own article, where it is already mentioned. It's covered in the media enough for a mention somewhere, but you need to show how this passes notability guidelines as a whole and would warrant its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't originally create this page, because at the time I didn't feel they sufficiently qualified for one. As a fresh startup the company had no meaningful corporate history to speak of and many of the articles about them coming out of stealth were heavily focused on Muglia.

Since then there's been media coverage about their second round of funding[1] and new product releases[2], as well as a general profile in Fortune[3] that establish some meaningful amount of history and sources that are clearly not focused on Muglia. So I think the time is right for an article to be started.

However, I would prefer not to list clients or competitors, due to concerns about promotion and linkbait/plugs respectively based on the advice I wrote at WP:ORGLISTS, which offers some guidance on when mentioning a company's clients is promotion versus encyclopedic content.

Please note I have a COI with Snowflake Computing and Bob Muglia. I have added a standard disclosure template at the top of this page. CorporateM (Talk) 19:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft

Hi All. I've taken a closer look at this article and placed a draft for consideration at Talk:Snowflake Computing/Draft that would slightly expand the article, adding information about when it was founded, funding and a short description of its product/service. The draft also removes the phrase "According to the company, it is the only database that does all its storage on Amazon S3.[1]" I think any claim on Wikipedia to being the "first" or "only" is a borderline WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and should not be included when the only available sources attribute the claim to the company itself, rather than an independent authority.

As discussed above, notability is a little debatable. According to IT Business Edge "Yet despite the young company's accomplishments, its current CEO continues to garner the most buzz for Snowflake." In other words the CEO Bob Muglia is the main reason the company is notable and he has his own article, but there is a good amount of information on the company in reliable sources that is not appropriate for his page, satisfying WP:LENGTH's guidance for creating a separate article on the company.

In any case, if the article is kept as it has been so far, I'd like to keep it in good condition with the draft noted above. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM I've implemented your proposed changes. LavaBaron (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixing references and links

I ended up looking at this article recently, and found that it was not well linked to from other relevant articles such as Cloud database. A closer inspection shows that some references are no longer correct. For instance, the number of employees was changed from 100 (2016) to 400 (2018), without revising the original reference from 2016 which mainly talked about why the company was named this way. I am going to use this section to park observations as I fix a few things. I will also park contents in transit here, before deciding what to do with them (e.g. the "What's in a Name" reference mentioned above). Fred Hsu (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

What's in a Name

As mentioned earlier, this was used as citation for the 100-employee number in 2016. This reference is no longer relevant for 2018's 400-employee number. But perhaps this one, or a better source will be useful for a "origin of the name" paragraph in the future. Thus parked here:

<ref name="Nicastro 2016">{{cite web | last=Nicastro | first=Dom | title=What's in a Name: Midokura, Pyze, Snowflake Computing, Ving | website=CMSWire.com | date=April 12, 2016 | url=http://www.cmswire.com/name/whats-in-a-name-midokura-pyze-snowflake-computing-ving/ | accessdate=May 8, 2016}}</ref>

Products

This article lacks mention of the company's products (services); it would be like an article on Ford describing it as an automotive company with no further detail. A list of services with a sentence to a paragraph on each one (as appropriate) would seem sensible. FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)