Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenger, Gray & Christmas


 * 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 is consensus that there is coverage, listed in this AfD discussion, which meets the standard imposed by NCORP. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Challenger, Gray &

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Dmehus with the following rationale "Clearly meets notability guidelines. Included within the article are sufficient references and a quick Google search produces significant results to meet WP:SIG. Also removing WP:Notability tag, but it could use clean-up.". I respectfully disagree. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. All sources here mention the subject in passing or are WP:PRIMARY. I couldn't find even a single sentence defining it in Books/Scholar search that goes beyond WP:YELLOWPAGES. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I jumped the gun in saying clearly meets WP:NOTE. Google search results would seem to suggest this may not be notable, but I would recommend searching for offline sources (i.e., newspapers), where possible, and/or films. Sometimes old newspapers are digitized and the Internet Archive might be engaged to see if there are free films that could substantiate its notability. I won't oppose this nomination, but at any rate, as written, this article needs major improvement as it is written like WP:CORPSPAM or WP:Advert. Doug Mehus (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment Noticed your edit summary, User:Piotrus, said "lets take this to AfD", which is probably somewhat OK in that it mentioned AfD, but should've included a clickable wiki link to this discussion page. I definitely recommend Twinkle for AfDs. Saves my life! Doug Mehus (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.      <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>
 * Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references appear to have any in-depth information on the company nor any independent content. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * only because I am familiar with this company and its pop culture references, but I haven't seen sufficient, independent online sources that provide significant coverage to justify keeping it. There may be some offline sources, but deleting without prejudice wouldn't be a bad thing...someone can always look up said offline sources and recreate article through new page review process. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify and send article to AfC process. There are probably plenty of offline sources available, though none of the sources cited by below qualify, in my view, as significant coverage and, this firm does have plenty of mentions in pop culture, including film and television. So, I suspect sources exist, even though, as written, this woefully fails WP:NCORP and WP:Notability guidelines. Thus, having this go through AfC would be a good thing. --Doug Mehus (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

<ol> <li> The book notes on page 47: "So monitoring trends in corporate layoffs can be useful if you want to anticipate changes in the economy's performance. One company that does precisely that is Challenger, Gray & Christmas (CGC), an outplacement firm based in Chicago. The Challenger group scans public information record for announcements on corporate layoffs and then tallies it up along with a commentary on the latest trends. (As of May 2004, the company also began tracking hiring announcements.) However, there is no free access to the Challenger corporate layoff report on the Internet. Paid clients of CGC are the first to receive the data, which is released the first week of the month. Those who seek to get the information for free will have to rely on business news Internet sites such as Bloomberg, CNBC, and CNN. CGC culls a variety of sources for announced layoffs, including press releases, newspapers, trade papers, and then adds them up. Its research covers publicly traded firms, though a few large private companies are also counted whenever possible. The focus is on comparing the volume of layoffs on a month-to-month basis and with earlier years. The data is also divided by industry and on a regional basis." The book notes on page 48: "There are no tables to review here because Challenger has not made them available to nonsubscribers. But the press obtains highlights of the report and gives it ample coverage. By and large, the investment community and economists view these layoff figures with only limited interest. For one, the numbers are not fresh. ... ... Another problem is the way the Challenger report breaks down layoffs by geographic region. It's based mostly on the location of the company's headquarters, yet many of these layoffs can take place elsewhere, even outside the U.S. ... On a slow news day, investors might take note of the Challenger report. Otherwise, its impact on the market is negligible." The book notes on page 50: "There are presently two major sources of information on layoffs. One is the Challenger, Gray & Christmas survey, which was discussed in the preceding section ('Corporate Layoff Announcements'). Its data, however, covers only announced corporate layoffs; it doesn't follow up to see if these job elimination plans were fully carried out."</li> <li> The book notes: "Challenger, Gray & Christmas (CGC) Основанная в 1962 г. в Чикаго CGC предлагала клиентам услуги по оценке и тестированию персонала, индивидуальный коучинг и программы развития для руководителей, перспективных и особо ценных сотрудников, а также разрабатывала комплексную стратегию при увольнении работников. из этого «микса» сформировалась услуга аутплейсмента. CGC помогала участникам программы найти новую работу в среднем за 3,2 месяца,  в то время как среднерыночный показатель составлял тогда пять месяцев. Свой успех компания объясняет индивидуальным подходом и бескомпромиссным качеством. Консультанты обязательно проводят глубинное интервью с каждым участником программы, а при продвижении на рынке труда советуют им не тратить время на массовые рассылки и пассивное ожидание предложений. Значительно эффективнее активные контакты и встречи с потенциальными будущими работодателями." From Google Translate: "Challenger, Gray & Christmas (CGC) Founded in 1962 in Chicago, CGC offered clients assessment and testing services, individual coaching and development programs for executives, promising and especially valuable employees, and also developed a comprehensive strategy for dismissing employees. Out of this “mix” an outplacement service was formed. CGC helped program members find a new job in an average of 3.2 months, while the market average was then five months. The company explains its success with an individual approach and uncompromising quality. Consultants are required to conduct an in-depth interview with each participant in the program, and when promoting on the labor market they are advised not to waste time on mass mailings and passive waiting for offers. Active contacts and meetings with potential future employers are much more effective."</li> <li> The book notes on page 226: "Another challenge came from Middlebury College in Vermont when the employees and alumni of the college criticized the work of the Challenger, Gray & Christmas Outplacement Firm hired to assist with the college's downsizing. Workers, it reported, were dismissed without notice and taken on the same day to a building on the edge of campus, where they were told to clean out hteir desks after hours, by appointment. The tactics triggered a storm of protest, including a march on the campus, petitions, and numerous letters to Middlebury Magazine. Comments circulated such as 'the whole operation stinks'; 'My agony continues as I try to comprehend why it was necessary to dismiss persons in such a frightful manner'; 'Total insensitivity on the basis of lame-brained advice from an outplacement firm'; 'The use of an obfuscatory word like 'outplacement' to conceal and sanitize cruel and arbitrary treatment of long-term employees ... is shocking.'" The book cites Nation's Business 1992 as a source for this claim in the appendix. The book notes: "By James Challenger's account he gave birth to the outplacement industry in 1965. Claiming to be the industry's founder, his Chicago firm (Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.) 'is certainly the oldest specializing in outplacement.'"</li> <li> The book notes: "Challenger’s father, James, co-founded Challenger Gray & Christmas Inc. in 1962 to provide outplacement services, which means it is hired by companies to find jobs for employees that have been laid off. The firm also works as a consultant to companies that are planning staff cuts. In 1993, noting a rise in corporate cutbacks, Challenger Gray started publicly releasing monthly and annual reports based on its compilations of layoff announcements. Employees sift through about 70 newspapers and several computer services daily looking for mentions of layoffs, which are included in the reports only after being verified by the companies, Challenger said. The reports include rankings by state, region and industry. The reports caught the media’s attention, and they’ve been mentioned with increasing frequency in major newspapers. They’ve also been criticized. Detractors say that because the reports are based solely on announcements--and Challenger Gray doesn’t follow through to tally the actual layoffs--they don’t provide a comprehensive view of the national employment picture."</li> <li> The article notes: "That's the opportunity his father, James Challenger, saw almost 50 years ago, when he and two partners — long since gone from the business, though their names are still on the door — started the first outplacement consultancy in 1962. An attorney by training, the elder Challenger was running a small kitchen appliance manufacturing firm but looking for a way to go into business for himself. He noticed growing numbers of increasingly large corporations were laying off workers as market conditions changed. He saw an opportunity and took it. ... But Challenger's customers, downsizing companies going through tough times, are increasingly less willing to pay as much for outplacement consulting. ... Challenger, Gray & Christmas is a privately held firm and, as such, is not required to release annual revenue figures. Various online business research sites give estimates ranging from $25 million to $50 million. Challenger would not comment on the accuracy of these estimates. He did confirm that the company has about 200 employees, and that number has, in the past, been as high as 300. One of the ways Challenger fights for his share of the market is by relentlessly promoting the Challenger, Gray & Christmas brand. Indeed, the most rudimentary Internet search turns up story after story on all manner of workplace trends in which Challenger or someone from his company is quoted. ... The firm also banks publicity at NCAA basketball tournament time, serving up an annual study on lost productivity from employees watching March Madness games, particularly the early round matchups that take place during the day."</li> <li> The article notes: "Challenger, 56 years old, is chief executive of Chicago’s Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., which bills itself as the nation’s oldest outplacement firm. His team is often the first to arrive at the scene of a mass layoff, aiding the wounded with everything from counseling to job-interview coaching. His firm had been quietly tracking layoff announcements for years because they were its lifeblood. But once quoted in the press, the Challenger, Gray & Christmas job-cuts report became an official staple of our nation’s economic news. ... In 1962, when Challenger’s father, James, started the storied outplacement agency, companies usually didn’t cut as deeply as they do today. And when they did, they didn’t often hire outplacement consultants to comfort the casualties."</li> <li> The article notes: "James Challenger had tried law, advertising and manufacturing of gas heaters before dreaming up in the mid-1960s what he called a wild idea: persuading companies to pay him to help find new jobs for executives and middle managers they were laying off. His firm, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, offered what came to be known as outplacement services. The initial reaction from companies, he said later, was why should we help people we’re firing? ... Outplacement services, provided by scores of firms, have become standard at most large companies. Challenger Gray, now run by one of his sons, John Challenger, has more than 300 employees in 27 offices across the U.S. and says it helps over 10,000 people a year find jobs. ... Challenger Gray couldn’t please all of its clients. In 2009, The Wall Street Journal quoted Sonia Service, a former PepsiCo Inc. employee, as saying Challenger Gray sent letters to prospective employers, without her approval, that included typos. During a practice lunch interview, she said, a job-searching coach chided her for ordering cranberry juice. The coach said that choice could be interpreted as a sign of a urinary-tract infection."</li> <li> The article notes: "Some activities appear to follow routines. Two Challenger clients, executives from different companies and different parts of the country, describe mock job interviews over lunch with their coaches. ... Ms. Service, the former administrative assistant at Pepsi, was offered outplacement with Challenger, Pepsi's main provider for about the past decade. She was invited to a two-day individual workshop in a suburban New York hotel near her former office, where a coach reviewed skills such as crafting résumés and cover letters. The coach said Challenger would check online regularly for relevant vacancies, then send Ms. Service's résumé and cover letter to prospective employers. Ms. Service didn't like Challenger's rewrite of her résumé because it contained too many dates she thought would reveal her age; she says she asked Challenger not to use it. Ms. Service says she never saw the finished cover letter. Ms. Service was later surprised to find that the résumé and a cover letter -- which contained a double comma and the date written as 'February 05' -- had been sent to a New York public-relations firm on her behalf earlier this year."</li> <li> The article notes: "The leading outplacement consulting firms are based in New York and Chicago. Among the oldest and largest is Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a Chicago corporation with 22 consultants and five regional offices serving up to 1,000 individuals a year. Its client roster includes the Xerox Corporation, Motorola Inc., United Airlines, Esmark Inc., the Quaker Oats Company and Sears Roebuck & Company."</li> <li> The article notes: "'Outplacement is a service that organizations provide to discharged executives and managers,' explains John Challenger of Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., an outplacement firm in Chicago. ... The Challenger firm is credited for pioneering the outplacement industry 26 years ago as a way to ease the guilt of executives faced with firing fellow executives."</li> <li> The article notes: "Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. is the nation's oldest outplacement company. The Company has counseled more than 20,000 displaced people since its founding in the 1960's. It maintains 16 regional offices in Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Tulsa, Okla. Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Nashville, Tenn., Philadelphia, St. Louis, New York/Stamford and internationally."</li>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Challenger, Gray & Christmas to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * The 2008 Wharton School Publishing book The Secrets of Economic Indicators: Hidden Clues to Future Economic Trends and Investment Opportunities notes: "There are presently two major sources of information on layoffs. One is the Challenger, Gray & Christmas survey, which was discussed in the preceding section ("Corporate Layoff Announcements")." The Associated Press noted in 1996 about Challenger Gray & Christmas' reports, "The reports caught the media’s attention, and they’ve been mentioned with increasing frequency in major newspapers. They’ve also been criticized. Detractors say that because the reports are based solely on announcements--and Challenger Gray doesn’t follow through to tally the actual layoffs--they don’t provide a comprehensive view of the national employment picture." Columnist Al Lewis wrote in 2012, "But once quoted in the press, the Challenger, Gray & Christmas job-cuts report became an official staple of our nation’s economic news." The New York Times noted in 1977, "The leading outplacement consulting firms are based in New York and Chicago. Among the oldest and largest is Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a Chicago corporation with 22 consultants and five regional offices serving up to 1,000 individuals a year. Its client roster includes the Xerox Corporation, Motorola Inc., United Airlines, Esmark Inc., the Quaker Oats Company and Sears Roebuck & Company." Cunard (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that any source you cite contains any discussion in depth. Yes, there's a bunch of mentions in passing, but that's not sufficient to make this company notable. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The book The Secrets of Economic Indicators: Hidden Clues to Future Economic Trends and Investment Opportunities provides several pages of coverage about the subject. The Associated Press article published in the Los Angeles Times provides several paragraphs of the subject as does The Wall Street Journal. I consider this to be sufficient to meet Notability, which says: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail". Cunard (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems you don't read the sources you provide. " The Secrets of Economic Indicators" does not 'provide several pages on the subject'. It only mentions a dataset created by the company, which is discussed on 2-3 pages, but the company itself gets only a passing mention as the dataset creator. The news pieces provide some coverage of one of the founders, not the company, and may be sufficient to justify creating his article, as he may pass NBIO. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and neither a discussion of the company product or a founder helps to make it notable, given there is still no in-depth coverage of the company presented anywhere. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

<ul><li>When books, magazines, and newspapers write about companies, they discuss the company's history, the company's revenue and outlook, and what the company does. The coverage about the company's report about layoffs is coverage about what the company does. I believe that coverage about what the company does to generate the report and what reception the company received from publishing the report has should be considered considered coverage about the company. While it is possible to rename this article to "Challenger, Gray & Christmas report on layoffs" since sources have written about it in detail, I think that is too restrictive of a name and would prefer the article remain titled "Challenger, Gray & Christmas". I consider this in the book The Secrets of Economic Indicators: Hidden Clues to Future Economic Trends and Investment Opportunities to be significant coverage of the company's work on the report and what reception the report has:

The focus is on what Challenger, Gray & Christmas (CGC) does to generate the report. The article notes that CGC is an outplacement firm, is based in Chicago, scans public records for corporate layoff announcements, generates a report with commentary about it, and in May 2004 started also tracking hiring announcements. This is substantial coverage about the company's work. The book also has critical commentary about the report saying "the investment community and economists view these layoff figures with only limited interest", "the numbers are not fresh", and the report is "based mostly on the location of the company's headquarters, yet many of these layoffs can take place elsewhere". I consider this article in the Chicago Tribune to be significant coverage of the company:

The article notes that the company was founded in 1962 by James Challenger and two partners whose names are in the company's name, that the company is facing a challenge in that its customers who are "downsizing companies going through tough times ... are increasingly less willing to pay as much for outplacement consulting", and that the company is privately held. The article notes that research websites estimate that the company's annual revenue is $25 million to $50 million and that it in 2011 had about 200 employees which is down from 300 previously. The article notes that CEO John Challenger "relentlessly promote[s]" the company's brand in the media in an attempt to get a larger share of the market and that it takes advantage of the NCAA basketball tournament by releasing a yearly study saying employees lose productivity from watching those games while working. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * I appreciate your effort, but I am not convinced this meets in-depth coverage. Few sentences mention the company in passing, that's still is, well, passing coverage. Let's see what others think about this - is this sufficient to met NORG/GNG or not. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree. None of these sources meet WP:SIGCOV. However, I've changed my !vote to Draftify, to send this article to the Draft namespace and have it go through AfC to improve it and have it meet WP:NCORP and WP:Notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The level of coverage seems pretty significant to me. Newspapers.com returns over 30,000 hits. bd2412  T 22:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – This is a prominent company within its industry, and one that is often used as a source by the news media. As such, our readers would be looking to us for an article on the company. <span style="font-family:Palatino,'Palatino Linotype',serif; letter-spacing: .1em;"><b style="color:#09F;">Senator2029</b> <b style="color:#09F;">“Talk”</b> 18:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the many reliable independent sources provided at this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2019 (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.