Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acqui-hire


 * 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   merge to Mergers and acquisitions. Irony! causa sui (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Acqui-hire

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is about a neologism. There are some sources that use the word, and some that give a short definition, but none linked that are about the word per se. I couldn't find any on Google News or Google Books either. This should be deleted per WP:NEO. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also, this article is a contested PROD. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is about Acqui-hire the trend and not about Acqui-hire the neologism. For instance Acqhire, Acquhire and Manquisition all redirect to Acqui-hire therefore the article is about the trend and not about the neologism. And if the article was about the neologism then we would have had separate articles for each of the terms Acqhire, Acquhire and Manquisition.

Only the title of the article is a neologism. But the article itself is not about the neologism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.49.242 (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And it turns out that the trend called Acqui-hire is quite notable, because it has been mentioned prominently by major sources such as the New York Times, Huffington Post, GigaOM and TechCrunch.

This link describes the term and its history in quite detail: http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/2435/

That link is one among the External Links to the Article and was probably not noticed by the person who nominated this article for deletion.

The article should not be deleted because it describes the trend called by the name Acqui-hire (or by other names such as Acqhire, Acquhire or Manquisition) and not the neologism called Acqui-hire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.206.170 (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I did miss that link. Thanks for sharing it. I notice that the link pretty much admits that the term does not have wide usage yet, though. The real problem here is that having the article title as "acqui-hire" is definitely going against WP:NEO. If the trend of "acqui-hiring" passes the Wikipedia notability test, then the article title should be a phrase in plain English. It might be possible to move this article to such a phrase, or maybe it might be more sensible to merge it with another article. I shall have another look at the possibilities tomorrow. All the best. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is true that the title of the article is a neologism and therefore it violates WP:NEO. I suggest that we rename the article title to a more familiar English phrase such as Talent Acquisition.

Secondly, whether or not the article should be deleted or merged is not an issue here, because the trend of "acqui-hiring" is quite notable as has been claimed by the anon IP above and it would definitely pass the notability test.

The only issue here is that the title of the article is a neologism and therefore the title should be renamed to a more familiar and self explanatory phrase in English. One option is Talent Acquisition, but if anybody can find a better phrase, it would be welcome. Prachursharma (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I had another look at the article, and the vast majority seems to be about the term "acqui-hire" itself. There is some commentary on mergers of Facebook and Google, which could possibly be merged into mergers and acquisitions, but that article is fairly long and there is already some material in it about "acqui-hiring". So, in the balance, I still think deletion would be a better choice (although I would also support a redirect). —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I would be willing to change this to a move if the article was edited to make it more about the concept and less about the neologism. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Teeth-grindingly ugly neologism that describes a subject that could easily be covered in a couple sentences in mergers and acquisitions, as it is already.  The current article seems to be less about the underlying concept (acquisitions made to acquire key people rather than ongoing business) and more an effort to catalogue when the word has appeared in print.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge into mergers and acquisitions as per above. Several Times (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into mergers and acquisitions. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into mergers and acquisitions The term describes a specific type of acquisition, but it is not well enough developed to warrant its own article. The etymology and the like can be sent over to wikidictionary if we like, but there is just not enough actual content here to justify an independent article Djohns21 (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2011 (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.