Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-sourcing


 * 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 Outsourcing. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Co-sourcing

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non notable concept; no encyclopedic information not contained elsewhere, which would leave a bare dictdef.  DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable. See Principles of Supply Chain Management, for example. Warden (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Current text is unsalvageable advertising and patent nonsense: Co-sourcing earns advantage over Total Outsourcing in a way that it minimises sourcing risks, brings in transparency, clarity and better control over the processes outsourced. Even if the subject could support an article, this text is not it.  Also original research, and seems to be inserted to promote someone's pet theory or method involving "identity management". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep · Sure, it's a poorly written article, but come on - a topic with hundreds of Google News hits and thousands of Google Books hits in multiple languages? Ihcoyc/Smerdis, the sentence you quote is jargony and may be OR but it is definitely not nonsense. Identity management in IT does not appear to be particularly relevant to the topic but is an entirely real thing; no need for scare quotes.  -- ≜ ∮  truthious ᛔ andersnatch ≜  18:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think that sentence is patent nonsense: it's made to sound like it's saying all kinds of rosy things while being vague as to what they are, and as such it's deliberately deceptive, can't be copy-edited, and is "content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it". It does seem to me that the bulk of the text here is meant simply to promote the business and blog given in the current article as references, and has nothing to do with the broader topic which might support an article.  When the article is in that state, we're probably better off with an honest redlink. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you gone and read any of the thousands of sources describing co-sourcing? They make sense to me and don't sound markedly different from this sentence.  Can you point to a particular phrase that appears meaningless to you or unrelated to the broader topic?  Grammatically diagramming out that sentence, not only does it make sense to me as a whole but all of its sub-parts do as well, though "total outsourcing" is inappropriately capitalized.  Yes, it sounds silly, but so will anything categorized as a "business term" and targeted at PHBs or discussed by MBAs (i.e. larval PHBs), and it's a crappy article on its topic but that is not justification for deletion. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 14:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article has been copy-edited to address some of the concerns above. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and passes WP:GNG:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 16:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 16:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 16:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment That ref by Warden shows the topic deserves a paragraph uynder the basic article on outsourcing. I call attention to the set of duplicative articles Indirect procurement, Offshore outshourcing, Insourcing, Nearshoring, Homeshoring, Offshoring Farmshoring, Knowledge process outsourcing, Recruitment Process Outsourcing, Software testing outsourcing, Website Management Outsourcing, and Banking BPO services, which all of them in good part duplicate each other. Some are subtopics, some are variants.  How many are suitable for separate articles, and how should they be merged?  DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   04:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Merge to Outsourcing. DGG has a point that Outsourcing is now complex and it is a matter of judgement how much splitting and how much lumping is appropriate. However this short (one-fact?) article would make a good short section in Outsourcing and with the resulting redirect the topic would be adequately covered. (Some of the other subtopics/content forks named by DGG are no doubt more problematic.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep worthwhile content, but merge to outsourcing is probably logical. Co-sourcing is a well-established enough term that it merits coverage, but it may be more useful to cover under the greater umbrella of outsourcing.  The number of overlapping terms that business consultants create in an attempt to make what is usually mostly commonly sense--and dull to most people--sound exciting, does not make each moniker individually notable.--Milowent • hasspoken  00:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Outsourcing. Recommend that the salvagable copy from the lede be inserted below Outsourcing. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (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.