Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namely (company)


 * 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. There are very strong points for keeping from experienced editors and sufficient policies are invoked. Apart from that, the nominator is indefinitely blocked for advertising, so the nomination could be a bad faith one to delete competitors' pages. (non-admin closure) ~ Ase1este charge-paritytime 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Namely (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unambiguous advertising Mazurkevin (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 22.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Nominator does not appear to have done a WP:BEFORE search. The company has been the subject of non-promotional news coverage from Forbes -- the magazine, not the contributor network, which is a reliable source per WP:RSP -- (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2018/05/15/namely-fires-ceo/?sh=7c35305b11de); as well as TechCrunch (examples: https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/02/exclusive-hr-startup-namely-once-a-high-flier-gets-a-new-ceo-and-60-million-in-new-funding-to-soar-again/ and https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/01/namely-a-former-high-flier-slashes-staff-as-demand-for-its-hr-software-dries-up-in-the-pandemic; the author, Connie Loizos, was senior TechCrunch staff, and the coverage does not seem particularly promotional, so the caveats on TechCrunch in WP:RSP don't apply here.) There is also this article from Fortune (https://fortune.com/2014/11/04/namely-hr-software/) -- it's paywalled, so I can't immediately tell how in-depth it is, but the author, Erin Griffith, was a senior writer at the publication and now at NYT, so it is most likely independent coverage.
 * So -- yet again -- AfD is not cleanup, and puffery alone is not a reason to delete (as opposed to clean up) an article on a subject that is otherwise notable. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note On a review of gnews, Techcrunch read like routine fundraising coverage. Same for the Fortune piece, which, too, is routine coverage based on a press release about $12 million in funding. You could be right but I do think this is closer to a deletion than a keep but we shall see. Mazurkevin (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you even read these? The earlier TechCrunch piece does not mention fundraising anywhere; it is about layoffs and turnover at the board level, while also delving somewhat into the history of the company in a way that implies that the journalist, not the company, finds it notable. The later TechCrunch piece is a follow-up to that, by the same journalist, which also goes into significantly more detail including interviews with people outside the company, and reporting on the aforementioned turnover. The Forbes article is further reporting on that turnover. I don't know what's in the Fortune piece, as it is paywalled; if you have read the un-paywalled article I would certainly like to hear it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CORPDEPTH: "For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO." I fail to see any possible interpretation of the sources provided that does not qualify as discussing in some depth the major changes in leadership, among other things. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Reviews   This is a detailed review of Namely. The review notes, "Bigger businesses though will love the power and flexibility offered by Namely, even though running costs are likely to be fairly sizeable too."  This is a detailed review of Namely. The review lists cons as "An expensive option for larger businesses" and "Compensation section feels limited in tracking salary changes after performance reviews".  This is a detailed review of Namely. The review lists cons as "Not suited for small businesses" and "Non-transparent pricing".  The review notes, "Namely is a very straightforward human resources management platform that is built to do more than just simplify companies do HR. It is an end-to-end HR, payroll, and benefits solution that easily fits well into any company culture." </ol> Fundraising <ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol> Firing of CEO <ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol> Layoffs <ol> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Namely to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * 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.