Talk:Invoicing bureau

Someone set this page as a redirect to "invoice" - this page has nothing to do with an invoice. If textual description is inappropriate, then it should probably be redirected to "accounts receivable". But this is a term that is not used in any context other than by a single American mass-media publisher. Its use as a proper noun is appropriate and should stand on its own. Reswobslc 07:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is precisely that it is used by just a single company. Since no one else uses this name, the name isn't notable, and so people on wikipedia won't go searching for it (unless they happen to work for Hearst and can't find the information there through the usual channels). A redirect seems appropriate (if not deletion). Do you have a different argument?--Chaser T 07:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that makes the name notable is the fact that this single company's products are in every grocery store in North America, and that their "Invoicing Bureau" correspondence shows up in the mailbox of tens of thousands of homes where teenagers live. You can't pay for a gallon of milk without seeing at least one of their titles, which include Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, Redbook, and Good Housekeeping (just going by what I see already on Wikipedia right here). That company, along with the list of at least a dozen of their magazines undisputedly merit their entries. Certainly, if the company only published a small magazine called the Puget Sound Aviator, then sure, this sort of entry is worthless - the merit is purely in their reader base. Reswobslc 07:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the company itself is obviously notable, but a non-unique bureau within the company is not. Lots of company's have departments that handle invoicing.--Chaser T 07:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. The fact that this company deviates from this style is what gave me the idea to give it an entry. This company creates somewhat deceptive correspondence that is made to appear as though it's coming from the "Invoicing Bureau", complete with the appearance that it is a separate company that goes by that name, instead of a certain department within Hearst. It's a deceptive tactic. The letter literally appears to come from "Invoicing Bureau" (based on its return address) and the included reply envelope is addressed to "Invoicing Bureau" as well. It looks very much like a letter from a collection agency, when most definitely it is not. The first thought I had when I saw a few of these, is: "WTH is an Invoicing Bureau?". Should this be better off deleted, go ahead, I'm still learning. Reswobslc 07:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you're beginning to persuade me. But we do have standards for this sort of thing. Has anybody wroten this up in a newspaper or other reputable source? If not it might qualify as original research, which means that it's just your thoughts about it being a scam.--Chaser T 07:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem to have signed off. I'll change it to a redirect for now. Just leave a message here if you want. I have the page on my watchlist and will see if you leave a message here.--Chaser T 07:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, didn't sign off, just timed out I suppose. You are probably right about the original research bit, at least as it applies to Hearst. A report from the Iowa State Attorney General was published regarding Time Magazine doing something similar and getting in trouble (specifically, mailing out solicitations to consumers that resemble bills, invoices, or statements of accounts due). Additionally, being in possession of the correspondence in question, I suppose that if I scan it and upload it as an image, that it also qualifies as source material to some extent. I suppose that I could improve this article at least by sticking to the undisputed facts as sourced from the letter, the clear differences between Hearst's "invoice" and anyone else's, and the obvious of the similarities between the Hearst and the Time invoicing practices. Reswobslc 07:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I really doubt it. I'd suggest you read some of our policies, particularly on verifiability and original research. I just don't see how this can ever be an encyclopedia article unless someone has written about this phenomenon somewhere that the reader can verify it. Sorry.--Chaser T 08:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help anyway. I am not bothered if this article doesn't remain - I produced it mainly out of curiosity to see what would happen. Will try again some other time, perhaps on a subject that's easier to support. Reswobslc 08:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)