Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zalaris


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Zalaris

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Routine references don't support the article. While the company is listed, with the assumption that it is automatically notable, references must support it that WP:V and WP:SIRS, not press-releases and profiles. Wikipedia is not an automatic listing service.  scope_creep Talk  11:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete There's pretty much nothing out there and, yes, they're listed on the Oslo exchange, but the company is totally lacking in any SIGCOV in RS presented in the article or indeed anywhere else. Probably deserves coverage as the most under the radar payroll company since the invention of the invisible cheque. Fails WP:NCORP with brio. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software,  and Norway. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: widely covered in Norway where it's seen as a high profile tech success:
 * Note: Google will translate this if you enter the Norwegian URL but for some reason it doesn't produce a valid translated article URL.
 * Note: Google will translate this if you enter the Norwegian URL but for some reason it doesn't produce a valid translated article URL.


 * I hope this is helpful,-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: None of those is substantial coverage of the business: they are all just reports of individual events, such as the company's stock market value having increased this year. They are also all written in such glowing terms as to make them look like press releases or other promotional material, and sure enough on searching I found that one of the web sites says of itself "Our mission is to empower ambitious people and businesses." On the other website I haven't found any such direct statement of promotional purpose, but I have looked at a sample of 10 other articles on the same web site, and every one of them had the same promotional tone. These sources certainly don't provide substantial coverage of the subject, and it seems clear to me that they don't provide independent coverage either. Being "seen as a high profile tech success" is not a part of any of the notability guidelines. JBW (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They are absolutely terrible references that fail WP:NCORP mostly because they are PR.   scope_creep Talk  18:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Scope creep, I read these closely as well as a number of other articles about Zalaris. These 4 are not press releases. They are bylined articles in respected newspapers. You can expand the current stub with this material. If you want more financial depth, I'll get you audited financial reports; they're WP:RS but they don't establish notability.
 * If you still really, really think these truly are press releases, just run sections of their Norwegian text through a search engine. If they're press releases, you'd get lots of hits. But you won't because these are news articles.
 * In any event, the closing admin will read the articles and make their own decision independent of your comments or mine.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dagens Næringsliv and Finansavisen are the two primary business news organizations in Norway.
 * Like many other news organizations (Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg), they carry press releases but those are not bylined. Somewhere they note the source.
 * These are bylined stories, not recycled press releases.
 * My point about "high profile tech success" is not that that makes this company notable but rather to note why the Norwegian press is very interested in Zalaris. The resulting press coverage is what makes Zalaris notable.
 * Other than 7-month COVID market drop, the company's stock has done well as have the company's sales if you look at the financial reports (not cited above). So, like any story nowadays about Apple's business, they're getting mostly positive press for now. That will inevitably change at some point.
 * One article does note they're cutting costs even as sales grow because profits aren't following. So if you're looking for bad news, there's some for you.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Back to the old bylined wheeze as though that is important. Depth of content, significance and independence of thought per WP:SIRS is the consensus based criteria, not whether there is a presence of a sentence that somehow signifies validty. I have zero confidence that your capable of evaluating a good reference. I have completed a WP:BEFORE on the article, per best practice.   scope_creep Talk  21:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One article does note they're cutting costs even as sales grow because profits aren't following. So if you're looking for bad news, there's some for you.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Back to the old bylined wheeze as though that is important. Depth of content, significance and independence of thought per WP:SIRS is the consensus based criteria, not whether there is a presence of a sentence that somehow signifies validty. I have zero confidence that your capable of evaluating a good reference. I have completed a WP:BEFORE on the article, per best practice.   scope_creep Talk  21:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Multiple sources are there to establish notability. Okoslavia (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We will go through the references at some point.   scope_creep Talk  21:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Lets examine the references:
 * Ref 1 Company report. Non-RS.
 * Ref 2 Investment report containing information obtained from company website. Fails WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 3 404
 * Ref 4 Company profile on Zalaris. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 5 Company listing. Routine. Not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS.

Looking at the references above:
 * Interview with the CEO. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Info taken from company report. Turnover and operating margin. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as routine coverage.
 * Behind a paywall. Now aiming to cut costs, reads like a press-release.
 * It states in the article, information taken from the last quarterly report. Not independent. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:SIRS.

None of the references above pass the bar of WP:NCORP. It is the usual kind of a routine information published by a relatively small company.  scope_creep Talk  04:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't clear from my !vote below, I agree with the above analysis of sources, none meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 19:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Specific analysis as to whether the available sources about this subject meet WP:NCORP would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Delete Change !vote due to Cunard source below This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*.  "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Just in response to a comment above by, it is not one of our guidelines nor does it form part of any criteria whether an article is "bylined" or not. Indeed, the idea that we don't examine an article's content (if it is bylined) so as to check it meets the criteria for establishing notability would provide an exception not contemplated by the guidelines and otherwise flies in the face of the checks required. I largely agree with the assessment of sources above and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. If this company is as notable as some say, I would expect to see a number of sources that analyse the company without relying on an interview from the CEO or information/forecasts provided by the company.  HighKing++ 20:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to add, usually a company trading on the stock market generates sufficient attention for analysts to produce detailed reports on the company. The company's website says that they are covered by the following analysts - ABG Dundial Collier, Arctic Securities, SpareBank1 Markets and Kepler Cheuvreux - but I am unable to locate anything which meets GNG/NCORP. In addition, it might appear that these "analysts" may be more concerned with raising capital and selling bonds in recent times and this might well affect whether their output (if any can be found) can be considered independent.  HighKing++ 20:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  This link contains an abstract of the report. The abstract notes: "Headquartered in Norway, Zalaris is dedicated to HR and payroll services, with SaaS, BPaas, and consulting offerings. It primarily services the SAP HCM market with HR services and complementary proprietary Zalaris technology (including Zalaris PeopleHub). Zalaris has two divisions: • Professional Services: the implementation division offering project management, technical consulting for SAP HCM/Payroll, SAP SuccessFactors and Zalaris platforms, test management & execution, change management, and digital adoption execution • Managed Services: primarily managed payroll as well as application support (AMS). Its Managed Services business also has payroll services clients where the HCM technology is not SAP. To support this, it delivers HCM integrations with Workday and Oracle."</li> <li> The article notes from Google Translate: "Now that all the new Tech companies are getting a lot of attention, Zalaris is quickly forgotten. The company has a high degree of repetitive revenues and low customer ways. After two bad acquisitions in 2018, the stock developed weakly. In fact, the operating margin fell from 9-10 to 2 per cent, says Henriette Trondsen. ... The company is in the midst of a turnaround, supported by some activist investors. The margin has also improved during the first half of the year, although some derives from cost cuts associated with the corona pandemic. Nevertheless, Zalaris shows positive development, says Trondsen. ... If Zalaris manages to deliver a margin improvement, it is up to a replay of the stock, says Trondsen, and continues: 'I think they're going to make acquisitions so I wouldn't have been surprised if they take any steps in relation to this. Therefore, my recommendation is long -term and not short -term.'"</li> <li> The analyst report notes: "However, in our view, the main near-term risk revolves around its Professional Services segment that primarily consists of consulting/project-based services. Zalaris could very likely experience that their consultants are unable to work due to either being sick, in quarantine, or that the customers put off work for the same reasons. Some of the work could possibly be done from home, but we don’t know to which extent. To put this into context, Zalaris had 2019 revenues of NOK 777m, EBITDA of NOK 104m, and personnel costs of NOK 437m in the PnL (+NOK 16m of investments in intangibles that likely is capitalized R&D expenses). That said, the company laid off 52 FTEs / 6% of its workforce ahead of the Covid-19 situation that should soften the effect somewhat. In other words, the 2019 figures include limited / no effect from the lay-off, in addition to extraordinary costs due to the use of external consultants."</li> <li> The analyst report notes: "We attribute the strong beat to the fact that the COVID-19 situation has had limited financial impact on the company. We also note their comment that the underlying margin is higher after concluding the cost-cutting program, although it was negatively affected in Q1 by lower utilization on freed-up capacity during the quarter. This has been a concern of ours during the past time, but the management does not seem to share that concern for now."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zalaris to pass Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * I see your back foisting raw financial information from company reports and press-releases as genuine reliable secondary references. I will go through them when I come back from work.   scope_creep Talk  13:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You will need redo them, they are wide of the mark.   scope_creep Talk  13:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks Cunard! The first is a research report on Zalaris' offerings and capabilities and meets NCORP. Individually, the others are weaker and arguably fall short but I'm going to change my !vote to Weak Keep on the assumption there are sources available perhaps (maybe in Norwegian, maybe no longer available elctronically, maybe a paper research report..) <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:38, 14 August 2023 (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.