Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastersourcing


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mastersourcing

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Neologism. Term only has a few hundred hits on Google, none of them relevant except for this article. No assertion of notability and no third party reliable coverage. Author removed a PROD, so here we are... Zachlipton (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A neologism invented purely for promotional purposes: not really distinguishable from outsourcing except to "evoke" a claim to "master" status, which makes our brand better than theirs: A variation of the term outsourcing, Mastersourcing can be defined as the transfer of the development and production of highly-specialized, mission- and performance-critical, low-volume products and solutions to an external provider. The concept – a supplier that has reached a master level – evokes “master plumber” or similar: masterpiece, master’s degree, masterwork, and mastermind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. '''.Valid term. Think crowdsourcing- it was a newer word that became used by many people and is now common. Also see multisourcing & nearshoring Wiki entries for reference and validity. In reference to the brand comment above- there is no mention of a brand in the text, and furthermore, it doesn't even allude to a brand or a specific industry for that matter. The whole concept of the text is to explain why it is different that outsourcing per the first part of the comment- nothing to really distinguish from outsourcing. It is a term that is being used in business discussions and is becoming more commonplace- as it is a newer term that is primarily being spoken about, not a lot of Google entries will come up- the very purpose of creating the Wikipedia article is that people are hearing the term and are curious about it and want to know more about what it means... wasn't that why Wikipedia was created in the first place? And now a word/entry is being proposed for deletion because there aren't enough Google hits on it and its a new idea? Seems to go against the principle to me
 * Note that this user is the author of the article. Your argument seems to ignore our policies about neologisms (WP:NEO). That policy states: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." I see no assertion in this article that the term is in wide use, or really that it has any use outside of a small group of people. A Google search for "Mastersourcing" or "Mastersource" turns up literally 0 hits that are at all relevant to the topic outside of the wikipedia entry itself. This is an extremely strong sign that the term does not have wide use, let alone discussion in secondary sources. Even if the term is primarily spoken, certainly there would be at least some instances of it in print if it was in wide use? You are welcome to promote whatever terminology you want on your own website, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: subjects must meet our notability standards to be included. This generally means that the topic needs to be the subject of substantial coverage in third party reliable sources. If you have citations to such coverage of the term "Mastersourcing", we'd all be happy to take a look at it and reconsider, but without any evidence of notability, this article is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Zachlipton (talk) 21:14, 13 January 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.