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. Much of the argument to keep is based on the number of sources and not the quality of those sources. The idea that any entity that can be considered a reliable source is therefore automatically notable seems dubious at best. While this organization's products are discussed and their staff is sometimes quoted in reliable sources, it seems there is a scarcity of substantive discussion about the organization itself, which is of course what is required to establish notability. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to an appropriate target. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquy (company)

[edit]
Colloquy (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Try (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) instead

I found no significant coverage for this company. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johannes, Amy (July 1, 2008). "Stacking Up". Promo Magazine. Retrieved December 25, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
  • Belford, Terrence (April 10, 2008). "Good things for reward-point holders who wait". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 25, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Lieber, Ron (April 19, 2011). "All About Your Unused Rewards Points". The New York Times. Retrieved December 25, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • "Web Sting". The Dallas Morning News. May 7, 2000. Retrieved December 25, 2011. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • "Loyalty marketing is a matter of attraction". Star Tribune (Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN). December 21, 2009. Retrieved December 25, 2011. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 00:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times quotes their research for one of their articles.[1] Others surely consider them a notable group and a reliable source for information. Dream Focus 00:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that the New York Times is a reliable source. However, the coverage of Colloquy in the article is incidental and thus does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd be very interested to see several articles from reliable sources for which the company is the central focus. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 02:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Each and every source I posted above in my !vote to "keep" is entirely independent of the subject. They're not press releases, and are not published by the company whatsoever. Also, have you attempted to search for sources yourself, or just waiting to "see" what others do? Clarification would help this AfD discussion. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I do not dispute the independence of your sources. Being independent of the subject is only one criteria for a source. As I noted in my vote to delete, WP:CORPDEPTH also requires that coverage not be incidental. All coverage in the sources you listed is incidental (i.e. the company is not the subject of the article and the company is not discussed at length). I also noted that per WP:PRODUCT, notable coverage of a product, in this case the survey, does not mean the company itself inherits notability. I have attempted to locate independent sources that cover the company itself, but I cannot locate any. If the company is indeed WP:N, it should not be that difficult to find coverage that is: (1) independent, (2) substantial, and (3) non-incidental. However I see no source that meets these criteria here. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which states (from a part of the article):

"Tracking customers through loyalty program account numbers offers companies an additional advantage. “If you don’t have a lot of information on your target audience and you need to get it, then you want to try to encourage people to enroll in as large a number as possible,” says Rick Ferguson, editorial director at Colloquy, a loyalty marketing firm. Once a company has more data, it can tailor the program further and aim at the most profitable customers with special offers. That’s what Starbucks will try to do now. Sales at stores open more than a year are actually falling, which has never happened to the chain before. The company blames the economy in part, and worries about consumers trading down from Frappuccinos to black coffee or simply caffeinating at home."

—Northamerica1000(talk) 09:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 09:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 09:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is coverage of a Colloquy product. Per WP:PRODUCT, the company does not inherit notability from a product. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 19:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A research company that tracks loyalty programs found that membership in credit card reward programs surpassed membership in frequent-flier programs for the first time in 2009. According to Colloquy, the company that conducted the research, the average household in the United States is signed up for 14 loyalty programs, ranging from grocery stores and gas stations to airlines and hotels, but actively participates in only six. The recession has diminished participation in multiple travel programs, said Kelly Hlavinka, a partner at Colloquy. She said this could bring about a return to the original premise of loyalty rewards: to cement a relationship with just one airline or hotel. “Savvy travelers may be saying, ‘I may not be able to spread my business out to two or three airlines, but I can consolidate my travel with one company,’ ” Ms. Hlavinka said. “The real opportunity for airlines is to try to keep that business with their airline.”"

—Northamerica1000(talk) 09:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An article's premise supported by Colloquy's statements:

"If someone gave you $600, would you throw $200 away? That's essentially what many consumers do since Americans earn approximately $48 billion in rewards points and miles each year through customer loyalty programs, yet about one-third of that amount -- or $16 billion -- goes unredeemed each year, according to a study by loyalty marketing information company Colloquy and global commerce firm Swift Exchange. Included in that total are unused credit card rewards, says Jim Sullivan, a partner with Colloquy. When such rewards go unredeemed, "the average household is throwing money out the window," Sullivan says."

—Northamerica1000(talk) 10:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 10:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 10:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a final project that an undergraduate did. I do not agree that this is a reliable source. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 19:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable company with sources given. Expansion to the page is needed, not deletion. Tinton5 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, but can you point out the particular refs which satisfy your assertion of "sufficient coverage"? If there's more than necessary to choose from, just pick out an arbitrary subset so those of us with short attention spans won't have to wade through all the dross to find the substance. EEng (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I echo EEng's request. I've looked through the majority of the references and I haven't seen a single one that makes a case for WP:CORPDEPTH, never mind multiple -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 14:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly tickled by the editor who dumped a flurry of citations into the article that are used nowhere. I fail to see how any of these references do anything to demonstrate notability of the agency in question. At the same time the above was added, said editor added "notable" to the description, as if this somehow automatically removes the deletion threat. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I aree with you. The quality of some of the references is being misrepresented in some cases (i.e. the scholarly research is actually just an undergraduates final project). The problem is that this article has been targeted for rescue by the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. This is my first experience with them and it has been very negative. They've dumped a lot of substandard references and votes to keep without any fleshed out argument. It makes it very difficult to actually find sources that are notable, since there is now so much fluff to sort through. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 14:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All those saying keep have given arguments. Their research is cited its peers, giving ample coverage in reliable sources. So they are notable in their field. Dream Focus 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, bear with those of us who are slow and dense. Please, pick out just two refs which are actually about this company, not just 3-sentence quotes from something someone in the company said, and list them here. To make it easy, here's a little template to fill out:
Ref #1-actually-discussing-Colloquy-itself-not-just-saying-they-said-something is this: [fill in here]
Ref #2-actually-discussing-Colloquy-itself-not-just-saying-they-said-something is this: [fill in here]
Thanks in advance!
EEng (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If your work is cited, you are notable. That's how it works with people, and no sense not doing it with research companies or organizations. Why would anyone do an entire write up on a company like this? What would there be to say? They don't make any flashy products, they just do research. Dream Focus 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know, maybe there'd be things to say such as those said about The_Gallup_Organization or Arbitron. EEng (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is explicitly not the case for WP:ORG. As has been noted previously, WP:PRODUCT states that "a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right... notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result.". -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 17:10, 31 December 2011 (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.
More