Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loyaltyworks


 * 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   no consensus. Feel free to speedy renominate for deletion if you wish! SarahStierch (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Loyaltyworks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; only one of the refs is more than a passing mention, and that, mention as the 39th fastest growing business in Atlanta, Georgia, in 2003, is still only 6 sentences. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not the largest company in the world, but it's been around for a while and has received some coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards keep - This company has actually received a good handful of news coverage even when I searched with their former name MMS Incentives, here. I'm assuming they only recently stopped using the old as articles from the early '00s appear with MMS Incentives. Google Books even found some results as well despite snippet previews. Unfortunately, Google News found alot of press releases even one from this year but there are some good results. While searching for any awards they may've won, I found two press releases for an award here and here. I tried searching for something non-COI but to no avail but at least a PR release is better than nothing and the award does seem notable to them. Aside from this, I didn't find any awards/accolades for the company. I also didn't find much in-depth about its early days and founder Steve Damerow but at least it's covered in the AJC article. Again, this company has received some coverage local and non-local though maybe not huge but still something so I'm leaning towards keep. SwisterTwister   talk  21:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is hard for me to see the award you linked to as a signifier of notability anywhere near the level general called for; it is an award with over 100 winners per region, apparently generally self-nominated with paid entry, issued by a group with an impressive name (National Association For Business Resources) but note that red link, with the suggestion that they are not a notable source (nor is there a page here for the award itself); a quick Google check suggests that the award is what they're primarily about (or at least how the attention is paid). Your Google News Search returns less results if you actually link the two words of the name (there are other MMS organization that pop up with your search... and even do after linking them, this MMS is not the Minerals Management Service), and it is pretty clear that most of them are the sort of passing mention that WP:CORPDEPTH calls us not to value, such as passing mention in identifying individuals or their work history. The Google Book results face much the same problem; being largely a mixture of print databases, no more establishing notability than a phone book listing would, and false positives where the words "loyalty" and "works" appear adjacent. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware some of the links were irrelevant and some of the Books links were as well (directories) but at the bottom of the page there's a Stanford Business and Builder. I also commented that it's hard to see what they see behind the preview wall. I also understand the award is probably minimal in that case that they also haven't won anything else. However, it does seem that they have at least gotten a little more attention over the years. SwisterTwister   talk  22:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Stanford Business is an alumni newsletter mentioning that one of the alumni has a new job. Even if the location didn't make it unnotable, WP:CORPDEPTH specifically notes that coverage showing personnel changes does not count toward depth. The Builder publication is the newsletter of the National Association of Home Builders, giving a brief mention of Loyaltyworks as managing the Association's Builders' Circle program... which means it is not an independent source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Yawn. But someone cared enough to write about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Awards to indicate notability need to be awards that have articles in WP or are of national significance. "One of The Best Brightest Companies to Work for in Atlanta" is insignificant, and   PRweb is indiscriminate and unreliable for notability because it prints whatever a company send it. BusinessWire is similarly unreliable for notability. Listings in an alumni paper are indiscriminate. The NYT articles are   mere  mentions. the other refs are no better.  Nobody actually did care enough about the company to write about it substantially in a reliable source. And the nth fastest growing business in a city translates as not yet notable  DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Squeaks by as a GNG pass based on footnotes showing, in my estimation. It's a close call and the case is not bolstered by the fact that two single-edit SPAs worked in tandem here. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.