Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HRO Today


 * 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 delete. Closing as delete over soft delete given the in-depth source review which clearly demonstrates refbombing and a complete lack of independent reliable in-depth sourcing, and which no one but the author contested. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

HRO Today

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article draftified for not having enough sources. Now it has a ton of irrelevant and poor-quality sources. Slashme (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

My source review here


 * Comment article was still in draft until pushed recently by the originating editor into mainspace after idling for almost the 6 months. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Author comment: The term "self-sourcing" may be this stub's best 'claim to fame' (article title: "Insourcing, Outsourcing? How about Self-sourcing?"). Outsourcing is an important topic. Since the whole point would be their early use of this term, a citation of the article that made use of the term, by definition, would be a citation of the magazine. The third entry in the table by Slashme (Thanks; your source review chart shows effort and care) is YES/YES/YES for a book citation. At this point, stub status is the "highest" possible outcome, if someone agrees. What's the article's value to Wikipedia, when Google finds them rather easily? It's that the companies nominated by them for awards get their proclamations recognized by notable publications, year after year, and attendance at their forums by high level officials are also given coverage. In short: does this stub outdo Google's info about HRO Today? Maybe not much, but part of what Wikipedia does do well is provide a better picture than Google. That's what this (stub) does. Pi314m (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The GNG actually requires multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. The reason we need this is to make sure that when we write about something, we're able to create a summary based on information from multiple points of view. --Slashme (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2020 (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.