Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onboarding


 * 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   keep. There is sufficient consensus here that this a vaild article and not just a neologism. The rewrite since nomination is at least a good start in addressing concerns about how the article was written which is not generally a deletion issue anyway. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Onboarding

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Advertisement for as-yet non-notable neologism Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A neologism in over three hundred books, dating back to 2002, would appear to be in wide use in industry. Heck, it makes the New York Times at      and sixteen more in the NYT alone.  @ megahits on Google.  Hundreds of mentions in news releases and nespapers.  So it is a paleo-neologism and not an ad. Default to Keep. Collect (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am probably the major contributor with the "conflict of interest" referred to in this deletion notice. I'm completely open about what I'm doing, working to contribute to individuals, groups and knowledge on the subject of Onboarding.  Not sure where the conflict is since I've written three books on the subject published by Wiley, the world's largest business publisher and been quoted in most major media on the subject.  Keeping this article fresh is one way for me to take the knowledge we've created and contribute it to the group of people that go to Wikipedia to learn.  I hope others contribute to the article, adding different points of view, improving the tone or style or wikifiing it to meet quality standards.  As you'll see, most of my edits have been in response to specific comments in those areas.Gbradt (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One way to prevent any COI per se claims is to post your suggestions on the Talk page, and (assuming anyone is watching) valid changes will likely get made. Wiley is not a "vanity press" to be sure! Collect (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Align: Make sure your organization agrees on the need for a new team member and the delineation of the role you seek to fill. Acquire: Identify, recruit, select and get people to join the team. Accommodate: Give new team members the tools they need to do work. Assimilate: Help them join with others so they can do work together. Accelerate: Help them (and their team) deliver better results faster.  Onboarding is certainly a core personal and management skill. Effective onboarding of new team members can be one of the most important contributions any hiring manager/direct supervisor or Human Resources professional can make to long-term organizational success, because onboarding done right can improve productivity, talent retention and build shared culture. Onboarding may be especially valuable for executives transitioning into complex roles because it may be difficult for individuals to uncover personal, organizational and role risks in complicated situations when they don't have formal onboarding assistance.  For people who write that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing that they write.  Seems to be typical of the genre: words chasing their tails, elaborately belaboring the obvious, meaningless lists of alliterative steps, studded with glittering generalities ("success" ... "improve productivity" ... "build shared culture").  I call this sort of thing patent nonsense - it's "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". And obviously, it's also advertising for a management fad wannabe book.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * further on defending the English language - also characteristic of this kind of thing is the inappropriate capitalizing of the buzzword, as well as of other phrases such as "Human Resources". -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keepand de-jargonise. Notable and important concept in personnel management. Rhinoracer (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to recruiting until an article can be written about the subject in an encyclopedic manner. As it is now, it would get citations from the Wikipedia traffic cops as a WP:HOWTO, WP:ESSAY, and several other things. Rewriting this motivational speech beyond recognition could be done, I suppose, but I'm not sure how long it would be until it goes beyond a neutral article and into an advertisement for Mr. Bradt's book, Onboarding: How To Get Your New Employees Up To Speed In Half The Time.  Mandsford (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment First dejargoning edit is done.  With any luck, I have not muddied any meaning.Collect (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the article still contains specific ideas from my books, can I convince you to give those books credit for those ideas and include them in the book list at the bottom of the article instead of referring to them as "One source"? I'm thrilled to be able to contribute knowledge I created.  Neither I nor Wiley are excited about giving copyrighted material away without any credit. Gbradt (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is still too much stuff taken wholesale from Bradt's book, to an extent that could be argued to be a copyright violation. The solution is not, however to leave it in. Collect: you didn't de-jargonize a lot of the worst stuff: rah-rah corporate-speak euphemisms like "team members" does not belong anywhere, least of all in the first sentence of the lede. With all due respect to Bradt's peculiar sub-genre, encyclopedia articles should use plain English; and to the extent you use it, you will go further and further away from the way his books are written. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Many businesses, perhaps most larger ones for sure, use the term "team" -- including Wal-Mart, Fed-Ex, UPS, Sears and many other companies.  It is a term commonly referred to in major media as well.  I remover what I felt was 90% of the problematic material.    etc.  You may not like the term, but it is extremely widespread. ,    etc. show how widespread it is in management books.   I deleted anything which could have been construed as COI or "puff" but when a term is in common use, it is not reasonable to delete it. Collect (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Also note in the past 12 months, the New York Times finds over one thousand uses of "team member" with reference to employees in its pages.   One newspaper. Seems the term must be quite common for such a large number of uses. Collect (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles here should avoid all jargon and weasel words of that sort. The phrase "team members" with regards to employees is a usage peculiar to corporate management and articles written by them or from their POV. We should use simple, neutral, non-euphemized terminology such as "employees" instead. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Jargon" which gets over a thousand uses in a major newspaper in a single year is no longer "jargon."  And I daresay six million google hits for "team members" and :employees" suffices to show how common it is.  The term is used by all the major employers I could find -- including McDonald's etc. as well.    And the "neologism" issue seems now to be abandoned. leaving no actual reason for deletion (you might wish to edit the article to improve it, of course). Default still to Keep. Collect (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How many googlehits would you get for a euphemism such as "passed away"; but our style is to say, "died." -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have over 36,000 places to edit in WP then. 'Passed away" is common in mainspace here.  Might you try again? Collect (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC) ]
 * Nope; that's a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. WP:EUPHEMISM explictly states, "Avoid clichés about death, such as "he died doing what he loved" or "his death was the end of an era", and euphemisms such as "gave his life", "passed away", "passed over", "left his body", or "returned to God". The word died is religiously neutral, and neither crude nor vulgar." Just because people ignore these instructions, doesn't make them less useful. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - with all due respect to your discussion, this section is a forum for whether or not the article should be deleted. We seem to have established the consensus that it should be kept and rewritten in encyclopedic style. Might we continue this discussion on style on the article's talk page? Ivanvector (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although a neologism at one time to be sure, the fact that there are multiple published uses demonstrates notability, and this once-neologism is here to stay. See WP:NTEMP. However, if I came across this article on RC patrol I would not have hesitated to slap a WP:CSD G11 or G12 on it, or at least a WP:HOWTO notice. Keep the article, throw out the promo-sounding bits, and make an encyclopedic article about the corporate management policy. There are plenty of good references. Ivanvector (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible Solution. In keeping with Collect's suggestion to post my suggested changes on talk pages to let others neutralize my potential COI's, here is a possible way forward for the Onboarding article.  I tried to de-jargonize and simplify to give us a core article for others to build on.  I did put in references to the books I wrote that were published by Wiley, since a lot of the ideas in this article (and about the broad practice of onboarding) are drawn from them.  Anyway, possible article below, formatted for anyone interested to cut and paste into the Onboarding page.Gbradt (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that I've learned how to do a "collapse", I've collapsed this so that it's visible when clicked upon. I can see where some of this would need to be edited, and the narrative would need to be paraphrased.  For better or for worse, encyclopedic style is intentionally bland, the opposite of the writing style that one must employ in order to attract a reader.  Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2009
 * Helpful Mandsford. Can I take that to mean you're OK with the direction this is going in making the article less jargonized, less of an advertisement and more neutral?  If we've got the content vaguely right, I'm happy to take another try at driving the style to be even more encyclopedic unless someone else wants to take a crack at that. Gbradt (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, yes, I'm definitely OK with the direction, and the subject is certainly notable for its own article. I'm only an amateur, whereas you're a professional writer of several books that have sold well or are even bestsellers in their genre; I'm glad that you've not taken offense.  I note that the current version removed any references in the bibliography to the two books of which you are the primary author-- I'll put those back in myself if you're concerned that it gives the appearance of impropriety.  The main thing is that the audience in Wikipedia is going to be more general, and most of the readers probably have no managerial background.  Certain explanations, which might seem insulting to the intelligence of one of the readers of a book on management, would be primary information to the average reader.  That being the case, many people can try to  explain onboarding in simple terms; you're one of the few who would be able to explain it accurately. Mandsford (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would appreciate it if you would put the book references back in the article.  In line with your comments and Ivanvector and Collect's comments above, I am going to do a couple of things: 1) ask Orange Mike to close this deletion discussion, 2) switch the editing discussion over to the Onboarding article's talk page, 3) put another possible solution for the article up on the talk page so that someone else can cut, edit and paste it into the article itself. Gbradt (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I do not think that the claim that the term is a neologism is the only (or even the most important) reason this article should be a candidate for deletion. It is possible this article represents overcategorisation - it should be a section of recruitment, not an article in its own right. In its current form it might be a content fork - an article created to represent one particular approach or theory about recruitment (particularly executive recruitment). And of course copyright violation is itself a grounds for deletion, and this is a known issue, as reported by one of the articles editors, who has identified (IIRC) as an author of relevant material. It appears true that this article could be rescued. However this would involve deletion of almost the entire text. I can see very little that should remain, either in the lead or the body text. A suggested revised version on the talk page is an improvement, but still a long way from acceptable. This is further complicated by the claim made by GBradt that the current version violates copyrights. In my view, Gbradt - or another editor - should immediately delete all copyvio material regardless of the discussion here, as a minimum step. If the article is kept, I am happy to be a participant in revisions to eliminate problem text, but as I say, at the moment it wouldn't leave much :-) I am pleased that User:Gbradt looks like he is prepared to move to limiting his role to proposals on the talk page, addressing possible COI issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the other way around. Since recruitment or talent acquisition is one of the first steps of onboarding, recruitment could be classified as a section of onboarding.  Onboarding goes well beyond recruitment or acquisition to incorporate accommodation, assimilation and acceleration of talent as well.  That broader perspective, well beyond just recruitment, is why the practice of onboarding had such a positive impact on organizations.  Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have my ideas included in this article - with the appropriate references. Gbradt (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I correct that the issue is simply one of assigning proper credit for quoted material rather than a claim of "copyright violation" in itself? I agree that "recruitment" is a subset of "onboarding" rather than the other way around.  And since "onboarding" also includes internal shifts in roles, "tecruitment" would be a very tough fit!   Collect (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Well put. And, now that you've modified the article to assign proper credit, that issue is resolved.  (Anyone looking for a glimpse at the original source material can download executive summaries of our books at PrimeGenesis.com Gbradt (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2009 (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.